So the French have rejected the proposed new constitution for the European Union. This is a vote of potentially massive importance for the future of Europe and the Western world as a whole. The European project for an “ever closer union” has long been an elite one, and especially over the past decade the gap between the elites and European populations grew large. All maintream French parties supported this constitution, yet the French people strongly rejected it.

The Communists, Greens, hardline socialists and the National Front voted overwhelmingly against the treaty; the moderate socialists and the center-right Gaullists of President Jacques Chirac voted strongly for it. The affluent and the urban voted for, while the rural and the working class voted against. Nearly 55% of French voted against the treaty, a margin of almost ten percent, and with 70% turnout, the vote had special force. France is so central to the European Union project that this one vote alone might kill it, and combined with a likely rejection by the Dutch on Wednesday, it almost certainly will.

On Friday night I watched France’s Snake Oil Salesman-in-Chief go on national television and make the case for the “oui” – France would have more votes in the new EU, this would protect France from the “ultra-liberalisme” of the wicked Brits and their Cowboy Cousins, it would protect France’s agricultural subsidies, it would it would make the EU a power in the world, and thus enhance France’s global position, and so on. Nothing about how France was giving up its status as a free nation. I actually started feeling sorry for the French. Then I remembered that they had elected this guy – about a dozen times.

I’ll have some comments below, but here is a rundown of news stories on the repercussions of this vote from Europe’s English and French-language media:

– See the European Union’s official response to the French vote rejecting the constitution. Note the comment about how European leaders must do more to “explain the true scale of what is at stake, and the nature of the answers that only Europe can offer.” In other words, the French people are just stupid.

– To see a copy of the proposed, but perhaps now defunct, EU constitution, click here.

– Le Monde provides a really cool interactive electoral map of France, showing province by province which ones voted for “oui” or “non” and by what percentages. You do not need to be able to read French to understand it.

– For French speakers looking for video, check out this in-depth report from France 2. It is today’s 1:00 p.m. news broadcast.

– Reuters reports on Chirac’s plans to replace his prime minister and set new policy priorities, with a move toward strengthening the social welfare state.

– Separately, Reuters reports on how this could be bad news economically for Europe, to the extent that it will mean structural reforms will be put off.

– The Independent reports on how Tony Blair is preparing for a “bruising battle” over whether Europe would move toward a freer market versus the French statist model, while Chancellor Gordon Brown and his supporters prepare to push Blair himself out of office.

– The Times of London frames the issue now as a “Battle for the Heart of Europe.”

– Le Monde reports on how “Jacques Chirac attempts to reassure his European partners,” encouraging other countries to go ahead with the ratification process and promising that France will fulfill its obligations in Europe.

– The Guardian explains why Britain, which had a referendum on the treaty planned for 2006, is now prepared to ditch the whole thing.

– The Guardian writes that the Dutch could “kill off” the EU charter on Wednesday with a no vote, something which is widely expected with polls showing opposition even stronger than in France.

– Le Monde‘s news analysis of the results and problems ahead.

– Le Monde reports on “La gauche de non,” dealing with the split among the socialists and their need to come up with a new program to challenge a weakened Chirac.

– Anthony Howard at the Times of London discusses the implications of the vote for Britain’s Tories, suggesting that it could help them make a fresh start.

– The Belgian La Libre reports on how the European Commission has affirmed that it intends to move forward with its program of budgetary discipline and market liberalization, which were the principal reasons the French voted the way they did.

– Le Nouvel Observatuer provides its own review of the press in various languages, including English.

– The EU Law Web Log has a list of dates for when other countries plan their referenda, assuming they don’t cancel due to the pointlessness of the whole thing.

Some notes from Brit blogs…

– The North Sea Diaries has an in-depth analysis of voting patterns as well as an electoral map (but not an interactive one, the one I linked above is better). Most illustrative fact: the post notes that 55% of “no” voters did so because of the “social situation in France,” whereas only 4% thought “Europe’s place in the world” was the key issue.

– The always witty EU Serf has several posts on this, one of which notes that if the French want to maintain their statist, unemployment-prone economy, they can have it, and Britain can go its own way – that is the beauty of the nation-state.

– The Adam Smith Blog writes about how “The nation state strikes back.”

– EU Rota has several posts, the best of which points out that Article II-77 would make it easier for the state (or superstate) to take private property.

– Great quote at Eurorealist, from Jean-Claude Juncker, current EU President: “Many of those who voted ‘no’ were voting for more Europe. If some of their votes are added to the ???????yes???????? vote, we have won.” Translation: Those stupid French, they really just wanted more of us, even if they thought they wanted less. Let’s just add the votes again a different way.

– And Daniel in Venezuela, who has connections in France, has a good post on this.

********

And now a few reflections of my own…

Without doubt the most bizarre aspect of this whole debate was this weird dichotomy between what critics were saying about the charter in Britain and France. In Britain, where opposition has been running about 2 to 1, opponents argued that the treaty would (1) undermine British sovereignty and (2) force Britain into convergence with continental economic policies, meaning more power for unions, inflexible labor laws, more taxes, more welfare state, and the like.

In France, some opponents also emphasized that French sovereignty was at stake, but most of the “non” votes came from the Left, and they argued the opposite of point (2) above – they feared that more power in Brussels would mean the end of the welfare state. There was some logic to this; EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has been pushing an agenda of freeing up markets within the EU – ending state support for companies (common in France), cutting back on agricultural subsidies (popular in France), expanding the EU itself into Eastern Europe (unpopular in France) and creating a single-market for services EU-wide (very unpopular in France, because of the East European competition). Some of these measures were actually written into the EU charter, and this is why the French Left opposed it overwhelmingly.

Yet British critics have a point, too. The new charter would permanently increase the power of the EU over British domestic policy by allowing for new policies to be passed by a qualified majority rather than unanimity. So although the current commissioner is pushing broadly pro-market policies, there is no guarantee this would continue.

********

What does this mean for the future of Europe? Two things mainly. One, it means that much of Europe will remain an economic basket case. With unemployment of over 10% in France and the Eurozone as a whole, slow or no growth in most economies, and rising competition from China, many are worried. The problem is, most in France have concluded that the solution is for France to cut itself off from competition and trade, not only with China but with Poland and Hungary. With France now making a move back toward more social protection and labor market regulation, expect more stagnation.

Two, the “non” vote is a blow to the European elite’s global ambitions of rivaling America. The new constitution would have, among about 487 other things, created an EU foreign minister and a more unified foreign policy. This was supposed to make up for Europe’s divisions over the war in Iraq and other issues. What good it would have done without effective militaries is anyone’s guess, but this is a setback on that track. And while many French voters sympathized with the idea itself, few put much weight on the issue, so it didn’t counterbalance the effect of the more unpopular provisions.

This does not mean, of course, that the elite will just give up on the project of creating a European superstate. But it is a major defeat for them, and may make them more careful about having these referenda in the future. So far, 9 European countries have ratified the treaty, but only one (Spain) by popular vote.

********

What does this mean for France, and for Kickback Jacques? For French domestic politics, the momentum is definitely with the Left, but the Socialists may be too divided to take advantage of the situation. But there is no question that opposition to this was driven by opposition to economic liberalism. With the Right divided between Chirac’s weakened RPR and three other parties, especially the National Front, a unified Socialist Party could probably win in 2007. France may see an upsurge in support for the more extreme ends of the spectrum – the Communists, the Greens and the National Front.

Were it anyone else, this would be the end. But Jacques Chirac was a minister in the 1960s, prime minister in the 1970s, mayor of Paris during the 1980s, president in the 1990s, etc. Under French law, being president gives Chirac immunity from prosecution, and this is important because of the finance scandals under his watch as mayor of Paris in which some of his associates have been convicted of fraud. So he has to keep running. But Nicolas Sarkozy, the current head of Chirac’s party and his rival for 2007, is the only popular politician on the Right. Chirac is 77 now, will he step down? Will he take his party down in defeat? Or will he find a way to slither back in?

********

I think China played a more important role here than generally appreciated. Many Europeans are very nervous about globalization, or else outright opposed to it, and while a few years ago the spread of American culture was viewed as the main threat to French identity, the focus is shifting to China. The French want to maintain their economic status, but they don’t want to work more than 35 hours a week or give up their employment killing labor regulations. And then there are the Chinese and their booming economy built on the export of many products which France makes.

********

And finally, what does this mean for the United States? I think it means a couple of things, both of which follow from the comments I have already made (I just want to make the implications explicit). First, the U.S. should not count on Europe playing a more constructive role in world affairs than it has over the past few years. It is not necessarily that Europeans are hostile to U.S. foreign policy, because even when they are, it is still not a major issue. Foreign policy plays little role in French politics today, and the same is true for most European countries. Europeans are becoming very anti-globalization, but beyond the elite and its focus on international institutions, there is no coherent alternative being put forward.

Second, the U.S. economy cannot count on Europe to start picking up the slack and buying more American products. European consumer demand is low and will stay low. Perhaps as Japan continues its recovery and, with time, China and other East Asian countries develop a middle class large enough to increase consumption on imported products, this will solve the problems. But don’t expect Europeans to help with global demand any time soon.

Contributed by Kirk H. Sowell of Window on the Arab World, and More!