European Union: The Dutch Vote

Dutch voters rejected the proposed European Constitution charter by a solid margin Wednesday only days after its humiliating defeat in France, inflicting a significant blow to the latest attempt at strengthening European integration. Although the vote of the populace is technically consultative, the government is unlikely to overrule popular opinion. What factors led to negative votes in France and in the Netherlands? What does this mean for the advance of European integration?

Washington Post reporter T.R. Reid, who authored "The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy," was online to answer your questions.

Read more: Dutch Reject European Charter.

A transcript follows.

____________________

T.R. Reid: Good morning, everybody. We're here today to talk about the sudden detour in Europe's progress toward "ever closer union." So let's get going.

_______________________

Tampa, Fla.: Does the French rejecting the E.U. constitution really represent nationalism triumphing over pan-Europeanism? I had read somewhere (forget the precise source) that Europe was moving towards cross-border regionalism, much as was the case during the pre-nation state Middle Ages. Instead of thinking of themselves as French, people in Lyon would start thinking of themselves as Burgundians. Business would form around regional groupings, such as Barcelona-Marseille-Milan, or Hamburg-Stockholm-St. Petersburg. Do you see this trend developing?

T.R. Reid: Excellent point. The driving impulse for union in post-World-War II Europe was the desire to move past nationalism (and war) and create a borderless alliance of Europeans. I think the memory of war that sparked this thrust toward Union is weaker now, since Europe has gone 60 years without war. But I don't think the old nationalist tendencies are going to re-emerge.

Rather, as you say, the power of regional loyalties is growing -- to Scotland, to Catalan, to Burgundy, etc. The E.U. has worked pretty hard to protect regional loyalty -- AS LONG as people remember that they are all Europeans.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: One reason that I'm intrigued by the French and Dutch rejection of the European Constitution is simply that it's an unexpected event-- a sign of life. Maybe some people in Europe think there's something at stake there, after all...

T.R. Reid: Exactly. The "European Project" has been the work of political and financial elites since the beginning. And now that regular people get a chance to have their say, they are saying "No." (Or at least, "Slow down!")

This has happened before in Europe. The Norwegians first decided to join the E.U., then reversed their position. The Danes voted once against the treaty creating the euro, and then voted not to join the euro.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: If some of the 25 countries don't want to sign the constitution, is it possible for the countries that want to do it to leave them behind and form an E.U. with 23 or fewer countries?

T.R. Reid: Possible, but highly unlikely. For one thing, it is hard to imagine any form of "Europe" that does not include France and the Netherlands.

Beyond that, the votes in France and the Netherlands have killed this Constitution. The E.U. is going to have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a simpler document.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: I'll be cynical and say that there's a reason why Europe is slowly becoming a museum that the rest of the world visits on vacation. The only thing I might buy from Europe is a car, let millionaires buy French wine.

Thanks for providing a forum to complain.

T.R. Reid: Actually, you probably buy a lot of stuff from Europe. It's somewhat amazing how many American companies and brands are owned by Europeans today: Holiday Inn, Jeep, Verizon, Shell, Amoco, Snapple, Alpo, I Can't Believe It's Not Butter, etc. etc. Even the U.S. Shoe Co. is owned by Italians.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I've been predicting for years that the euro would eventually fail as a monetary unit, because each member country is supposed to satisfy certain fiscal standards, and they often fail to do so. Do you think the collapse of the constitution will hasten the demise of the euro? I know it has already fallen vis a vis the dollar.

T.R. Reid: What's your time frame? Since March, the euro has fallen about 8% against the dollar. Since its birth in 2002, though, the euro has gone up 55 percent against our weak dollar. It has been the strongest currency in the world for three years. More eurobonds will be sold this year (for the first time) than dollar bonds.

In my book, I have a lot of fun quoting Americans who predicted that the euro was doomed to fail. So far, at least, it has been a resounding success.

If you had bought euros in Jan. of 2002 and held them, you would have made about 8 times as much profit as an investor who bought a Dow-Jones index basket of stocks at the same time.

_______________________

Montgomery Village, Md.: The future of the European Union holds great promise for those of us who believe the power of the E.U. will force American corporations to uphold similar environmental standards that the E.U. promises to require of products that come in and out of its borders. What effects might the recent 'no' votes by the French and the Dutch have on this situation?

T.R. Reid: I don't think the vote will change Europe's commercial clout in the world. The E.U. is the biggest market on earth -- bigger than Japan, China, or the U.S. -- and that means Euro-regulators can set the rules that companies everywhere have to follow.

This won't change because of the failure of the constitution. One example: any company in the U.S. or elsewhere that makes any electric or electronic device will have to meet the E.U. standards on so-called "E-waste" beginning next year. The U.S. does not regulate these waste products, but the E.U. rule governs. Companies need the Euro market, so they can't ignore Brussels's rules.

_______________________

Amsterdam, Netherlands: I'm an American living in Amsterdam. Over the last few days people really debated the basis of the constitution. I believe that people voted against the constitution because of fear: fear of Turkey gaining entrance- there is a lot of anti-immigration/Muslim sentiment in the Netherlands, and fear of poor eastern European countries coming in and destroying the economy. The people in the yes camp should have pointed out the success stories of Europe: Spain, Ireland and Portugal have all benefited by joining the union- which in turn makes a better stronger Europe. I've never heard one Yes politician speak of the success of Europe.

T.R. Reid: Thanks for that observation. It sounds right to me. I noticed that Nicolas Sarkozy in France campaigned for a Yes by saying "I'm 50 years old, and have never seen a war." That's the positive side of the E.U.. But this argument for peace has less power now in a continent that doesn't expect a war any time in the future.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Will Britain every join the euro? Why?

T.R. Reid: My answer to that, before this week's referenda, was that the UK will eventually have to join the euro. The theory is that the 12-nation euro block will grow to 20 countries within 5 years. Denmark and Sweden will almost have to join. That means Britain, with about 60 percent of its exports going to Europe, will have to join as well.

But now I'm not so sure. We'll have to see if the psychic defeat for unity from these two votes will slow the spread of the single currency.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I think it is also important to remember that 10 countries have been chosen to ratify the charter by referendum. Although this does send a message of reflection to the wider process of the ratification the constitution still has 1 1/2 years until it is to be implemented in November 2006--or perhaps the members may decided to extend the ratification process.

T.R. Reid: The problem with that notion is that France is too central to the whole idea of a united Europe. Without France, the constitution is a goner.

I think Europe will scratch this unwieldy document and come up with a simpler alternative. And I bet when that happens, the French government will forego the referendum and approve it in the parliament.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What is Europe trying to achieve through the European Constitution? Is there any political or social upside or is it simply all economic?

T.R. Reid: The united Europe is more than an economic union. They have built a highly unified place, with common courts, passports, regulators, culture, and even a common language (that is, English, the first or second language of every European).

To govern this union, the E.U. had a four-branch federal government that was actually created when the union had only six countries. As a 25-nation union, they needed a new governing mechanism. The constitution was supposed to provide it. It would have made the government in Brussels much more efficient.

The E.U. can still operate on the old system, and will do so until they come up with a new approach to reform that is more acceptable to the populace. This could take years.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Obviously part of the reason for the rejection (at least in France) is the fear that the E.U. was a threat to the cherished welfare state. However, isn't the lavish welfare state crumbling under its own weight? When will the French accept that they can't strangle their economy and still generate enough wealth to provide all the benefits they demand?

T.R. Reid: The welfare state is expensive, and has some of the same problems we are facing, with an aging population and fewer workers to pay for the benefits.

Still, Europeans like big government more than we do. They like the free (or dirt-cheap) medical care, the free college tuition, the endless unemployment benefits, etc. They pay high taxes for this, and put up with taxes because they want the benefits. So I think they will find ways to preserve most of their welfare state. They think we are cold and stingy because we don't provide the same benefits to the poor that we do.

One thing that helps them pay the welfare bill is that they don't pay much of a warfare bill. We defend them; we pay 70% of the cost of NATO, and we keep 100,000 American soldiers on European bases. They save on defense, and put the money into free visits to the doctor.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Were the chances of all E.U. nations ratifying the constitution ever very high? I could not imagine the British public voting in favor of it in a referendum (the date for which has evidently not been set). Perhaps the French and Dutch "Non" and "Nee" votes will forestall a negative vote in the U.K.?

T.R. Reid: You're right. It was always dubious that British voters would approve an E.U. constitution. The intense distrust of Tony Blair, the man known as "Bush's poodle," would have made a U.K. "Yes" even more unlikely.

So I think P.M. Blair may be the happiest man in Europe after this week's votes. He doesn't have to go ahead with a U.K. referendum now.

_______________________

Houston, Tex.: Does the European governing elite understand that they are ultimately accountable to the will of the people? They seem to be blaming the French and Dutch governments for not "selling" the constitution well enough, instead of acknowledging that the people may have a legitimate beef with the content.

T.R. Reid: You've got it right. This huge Constitution was a classic case of the political class telling everybody else what to do. And when regular folks got a chance to answer, they told the elites to go packing.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The European elite likes to say that 9 or 10 countries have already ratified the constitution, so the French and Dutch rejections are an anomaly. However, isn't it the case that all of the ratifications were done by legislatures, not by popular vote? In addition, how many further votes are scheduled? Will they too reject the draft constitution?

T.R. Reid: Actually, several countries did approve the constitution by referendum. Spain was the first, in March.

Beyond that, if you look at the referenda last year among the ten new member countries, people there voted for the E.U. by margins of 80-20 or more. So there is some popular support for the union.

I don't see much point in further votes on this failed constitution, though. So I don't expect more refenda, except in a couple of countries that have scheduled the vote and can't unschedule it now.

_______________________

Rotterdam, Netherlands: Feelings in the Netherlands are that Europe is expanding too fast. What is your opinion about Romania and Bulgaria joining the E.U. in 2007? Will they have a "fair" start, or will they be seen as another example of Brussels doing whatever they want to do?

T.R. Reid: Thanks for contributing. I want to emphasize this comment from the Netherlands for our American readers. There is a sense that the "European Project" was moving too fast on too many fronts. People want some time to think over the rapid changes on the continent and assess the impacts.

I think one result of these votes will be a decision to slow down the rate of change. That could delay further expansion, and make Romania and Bulgaria spend more time on the waiting list. As for Turkey, that seems to be more than a decade away now.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: In France, the "oui" forces argued that the French should vote for the E.U. Constitution in order to stand tall against the U.S. The "non" forces argued that the French should vote against the E.U. Constitution in order to protect themselves against American-style capitalism. Is everyone in France insanely anti-American?

T.R. Reid: The fact is, running as an anti-American is a potent political strategy in much of Europe today. Europeans don't like our president, and they don't like the war in Iraq. Chirac, Schroeder, Zapatero, etc. all owe their electoral victories to a strategy of America-bashing.

So it is not surprising that both sides in the referenda debate fell back on this effective political tool.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: What did they really say no to? It seems that the contents and utility of the constitution are completely irrelevant - is that so?

T.R. Reid: It feels that way to me. As Sr. Barroso, the Portuguese president of the European Commission noted, the right wing voted No because they wanted a weaker E.U.; the left wing voted No because they wanted a stronger E.U..

So this had more to do with general attitudes toward Brussels and toward the national governments than it did with the actual content of the constitution.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: When the U.S. Constitution was ratified in the late 18th century, there was no requirement of unanimity amongst the 13 Colonies. Why did the E.U. require all 25 countries' approval to ratify this constitution?

T.R. Reid: This was supposed to be an answer to the complaint that there is a "Democratic deficit" in Europe -- that the elites built a pan-continental union without asking the people.

Of course, Giscard and other authors of the constitution were sure it would pass when they set up the requirement for unanimous approval. And in fact, all 25 prime ministers did approve the document last November.

So I think Giscard etc. were stunned when the NO movement turned out to be so strong.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Re: Europeans like big government more than we do.

No doubt they do, but a good many French voters thought the E.U. constitution was a threat to the welfare state when in reality it is the welfare state's cost. My question is when does Europe have it's "day of reckoning" with their desires for elaborate benefits and their ability to finance them at current (or higher levels)?

T.R. Reid: On the cost of the welfare state, here's a European perspective.

An American, paying about 8 percent in total sales taxes, may pay $300 per month in taxes. A Dane (paying 25 percent sales tax), a Swede (22 percent), a Brit (17.5 percent), pays much more in taxes. But those Europeans pay zero, or nearly zero, for medical insurance, while the American pays $500 per month. Most Europeans don't have to set aside money to send the kids to college, because college is almost free in most of the countries. Europeans don't have to hire a nurse to help out when a new baby arrives; the government provides that service free.

Plus, the welfare state programs may be more efficient than ours. Europe provides medical coverage for every single person, and the quality is good. But the E.U. spends one half as much per capita on medical care as we do.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: You suggest that Turkish admission is "more than a decade away." My feeling is that it will never happen, unless Europe continues to allow so much Islamic immigration that the Muslims are able to exert a political majority. That, if it ever happens, is more like 50 or more years away.

T.R. Reid: There are compelling reasons for Europe to admit Turkey.

For one thing, the whole impulse for union is the concept of borderless alliance, of working together to overcome traditional ethnic-religious-national hostilities. If you share that world view, then you take in Turkey.

Beyond that, it could be a powerful defense against militant Islam if the E.U. were open enough to take in a large Muslim country.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Sarkozy's comment about never seeing a war strikes me as very odd. I'm wondering whether the "yes" camp suffers from a false sense of security, given that Europe's relative peace is due not so much to integration, but to post-WWII American and Soviet control. Thus when the "yes" people put the E.U. constitution to a vote, it doesn't have the strong public support it needs because the constitution isn't seen as providing anything necessary. Put it this way -- Sarkozy is old enough to have seen his country fight a war in Algeria, and to bully small countries around the globe. He's old enough to see Europe's colonies, particularly in Africa, revert to basket cases. He's old enough to see the Balkans -- still in Europe, last time I checked -- revert to brutal war- war we Americans ended. So by pushing some E.U. constitution as the guarantor of peace, people like Sarkozy are failing to address some real problems.

T.R. Reid: War in Europe means the devastating national wars, often pitting the French against the Germans, that left tens of millions dead in the 20th century. The E.U.'s great achievement was ending the threat of another such war.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Mr Reid I loved your books, "Confucius Lives Next Door", and your recent "United States of Europe." As a British expat, I felt the latter encapsulated exactly the sentiments in Europe, and the feeling of opportunity and innovation that the European Union has brought. So, as a result, I was very sad to hear of the No vote.

What happens now? Do you have a feeling as to the likely direction of the E.U. from this point?

T.R. Reid: Thank you. You are a discerning reader.

I think the practical implication of the votes this week will be small. The E.U. will continue to operate, just as it did last week before these referenda. None of the 25 countries is leaving the E.U.. Nobody is dropping the euro. All of the 8 applicant countries still want to get in.

And I think the E.U. is still ambitious to be a key player in the world, a "counterweight" to US power.

So I would guess the leaders of Europe will let a decent interval pass, perhaps slow down the pace of change, but keep heading down the same path.

_______________________

Kennesaw, Ga.: Good morning, Mr. Reid. It seems that not all Europeans are as enthused about the new superpower as some American journalists.

Press coverage of the French and Dutch votes suggests strongly that most of the people voting on the draft E.U. Constitution had not read it -- no surprise given its great length and complexity. Does this not pose an insuperable obstacle to further ratification efforts among Western European states?

I know I wouldn't be inclined to vote for a Constitution over 300 pages long unless I'd written the thing myself. Would you?

T.R. Reid: Excellent point. I doubt that one-tenth of one percent of voters had read the constitution. It is a huge compendium of stuff and nobody was ever expected to read it all.

I think this Constitution is a dead letter now. Much of it was actually just a compilation of earlier treaties, which are already in effect.

If Europe tries to pass another constitution, it will be a simple and more general document that people can read.

_______________________

Vlaardingen, Netherlands: Perhaps John Mearsheimer had it right: its not the promotion of democracy that eliminates war but the fear of mutual destruction vis-a-vis nuclear weapons?

T.R. Reid: The flaw with that theory is that there are wars in the world, even with nuclear weapons proliferating.

I think the architects of The United States of Europe had it right: they had to find a way for people to work together, rather than against each other. And that unity would make war impossible. This has worked well for the past six decades, anyway.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: Is it safe to say that the idea of a united Europe is dead?

T.R. Reid: No. The idea of united Europe is alive and well. No member nation is leaving the E.U., and many nations are knocking on the door to get in.

Europe is more unified today than any time since the Roman Empire. The euro has been a success, over all. Peace has trumped war. And the Europeans like the global clout they get from being the world's biggest market, and biggest aid donor.

So the united Europe will move ahead.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Why is anti-free-market ideology so strong in Europe? It seems to be shared by all political parties in France and Germany and Italy?

T.R. Reid: Not sure I buy your premise. Europeans believe in free markets. In fact, they have gone further in some areas of deregulation (water, power, air traffic control) than the U.S. In energy, telecoms, food service, airplanes, etc., European companies have surpassed U.S. and Japanese competitors.

But there is a sense in Europe that free markets can be cruel toward the downtrodden. Much of Europe thinks our country is cold and unfeeling toward the poor. And they are more willing than we are to rely on government to offset the tendencies they fear.

_______________________

Vlaardingen, Netherlands: I don't understand why critics still use the "democratic deficit" argument as a source of discontent in the E.U. The Treaty of Amsterdam gave far more power to the European Parliament by granting it an expanded scope and more extensive co-decision procedure with the Council. Furthermore, the argument has since shifted to the European Commission in which Competition proceedings are largely kept secret. In what system would any company cooperate with an investigation when its secrets become public information? Perhaps the ones that complain of a democratic deficit are the ones supportive of a E.U. constitution, but how long will it take Europe to realize it has become federalist?

T.R. Reid: Thank you. Readers, please compare this comment to the next, also from the Netherlands. This will show the range of opinion among Europeans.

_______________________

Amsterdam, Netherlands: The original goal of the E.U. was to create a common market. I voted against the European constitution because democratic legitimacy of the E.U. is insufficient for an increase in power. The European parliament does not debate but reads statements, because the multiple languages make a real debate impossible. The language barrier also makes these "debates" impossible to follow. Also it is doubtful whether one can speak of a "demos": the public thoughts on important issues as the penal system and foreign policy diverse greatly among the member states.

Americans seem to take it as a sign of incompetence (or so I hear) that we are unable to give a coherent and common response on issues of foreign policy et cetera. To me it is unclear why Americans expect such a common response from the E.U., but do not expect one from for instance ASEAN (an association of South East Asian Nations)?

T.R. Reid: As noted, please compare this sentiment to the previous comment, from another Dutch voter.

_______________________

T.R. Reid: To all those who took part in this discussion:

I am totally thrilled that so many Americans are interested in the progress of the European Union. The response today shoots down one of the Europeans' favorite myths about our country. They think we are "insular." They think Americans are ignorant of, and indifferent to, the rest of the world.

Which of course is wrong. As I note in my book, there has never been a broader collection of nationalities, races, creeds, ethnic backgrounds, and languages than the United States of America in the year 2005. We come from all over the world, and we follow events all over the world.

As you have proven again today. Thank you.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.