Franco-German Dream of a Counterweight to the U.S. Crashes

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Did the French [Finally] Do Us a Favor?

[ YES ]

By Gerard Baker
Gerard Baker is a columnist for the London Times

June 5, 2005

Last week, voters in France and the Netherlands overwhelmingly rejected the proposed EU constitution, a rambling document approved by the union's 25 heads of government. The constitution, lovingly crafted by the continent's political elite over three years, would have confirmed and accelerated the integration that has been shifting power from national governments toward Brussels. One German minister called it the "birth certificate of the United States of Europe."

But the people, inconveniently, intervened. Since 1789, the spectacle of free French rejecting their masters has been an uplifting one for Americans, no less when it is Jacques Chirac than when it was Louis XVI. But the Bush administration is in no position to celebrate this popular victory.

Earlier this year on her charm-rich debut trip to Europe as secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice declared herself an enthusiastic supporter of the constitution. Last week, in Washington she again insisted that the integration was a good thing for the continent and for the United States. To be fair, Rice was merely repeating what U.S. administrations have said for many years.

It might once have been true that U.S. interests were served if it came together with Europe in a voluntary union that would invigorate economies through free markets and promote democratic values. But for years, the EU "project" has been a pale shadow of those lofty ideals.

The Europe rejected by the French and the Dutch last week has become a bureaucrats' fantasy theme park, an unwieldy leviathan steadily extending its reach into areas of European life in ways that would do more harm than good to U.S. global goals.

Internationally, it would create a single foreign policy with a single foreign minister. That would make it harder for countries with strong pro-American traditions, like Britain, Poland and Denmark, to line up with the United States.

At best, it would mean inglorious immobility, a foreign policy in which 25 disparate nations cannot agree on anything. At worst, it would drive Europe toward the Franco-German dream of a counterweight to U.S. power.
Nor would the constitution assist the United States in achieving its real need for a strong Europe created by a more dynamic economy with growing markets for U.S. goods and services. The core European economy, the Euro-zone, is a parched landscape of post-industrial decline. Unemployment in France and Germany, the two largest members, is over 10%; productivity is slumping as companies are entangled in a web of labor and social protections.

What the EU needs is radical economic reform to free up labor markets, dismantle social protections and reduce the size of government.
The constitution would not only fail to provide that reform, it would actually make things worse — opening up new areas of economic activity to Euro-regulation.

Beyond that, the main reason the constitution would be bad for the United States is that it has been built on the flimsiest of public support.

The European project was once approved by voters because it offered a chance for economic growth and peaceful cooperation. But for the last quarter of a century, it has been driven by a political elite intent on increasing its own Europe-wide power at the expense of national governments. When they have been asked, voters have shown a consistent tendency to reject the whole business. The Danes voted against the euro twice, the Swedes once. Now the French and the Dutch have added their "non" and "nee" to their leaders' ambitions for a constitution.

In the past, Europe's elites simply ignored this growing crisis of public confidence and pressed on regardless. Even as voters were rejecting their leaders' vanity last week, the EU insisted nothing had changed.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg and current president of the EU, said shortly before the French vote: "If it's a yes, we will say, 'on we go.' And if it's a no we will say, 'we continue.' "

It was the kind of remark that perfectly captured the EU's inimitable elitist arrogance. It would have brought a smile to the face of Bertolt Brecht, the great German poet and playwright who lived in East German territory. Brecht once ridiculed the communist attitude toward the people by saying: "The people have forfeited the confidence of the government; it's time the government simply dissolved the people and elected a new one."

The U.S. should stop supporting the modern-day heirs to the objects of Brecht's scorn and put the promotion of a free, open and democratic Europe at the heart of its foreign policy agenda.

Interesting article, even though it celebrates the rejection of the constitution by the French as a good thing since the adoption of the treaty would have meant less possibilities for free trade ... while, to the contrary, the treaty has been rejected by the people partly because it was seen as too favorable to free market enhancement....

On the other hand, France and Germany, independently of the outcome of such a referendum, still do represent the heavy weights of the EU. In an Europe extended to 25 countries, one may think that their importance is lowered ... well they are still leading the way, whatever a one columnist may desire ...
Agreed or not, countries sticking to the Bush admin foreign policy will have to do with that. And in such a context, it is not sure that the "no" is favorable to the US.
While the EU would have had a more homogenous foreign policy with a constitution applicable to all its members, it would have been perhaps less possible for countries like GB or Poland to line up with the US, but conversely France and Germany (and some others) would have had less margin too to voice their disagreement.

So ... if these countries are still leading the way in Europe ... and still have the ability to oppose to the US foreign policy ... just do the math and understand why Rice was favorable to the adoption of the treaty ...

The fact is that something else will have to replace the constitution but it will ultimatly be something that the majority of people want for europe not what the leaders thnk they want.

June 14, 2005

Euro is at a new 120-day low.

The EU constitution was 400 pages long. That in itself deserved a NO vote. Back to the drawing board and next time they should keep it simple so politicians of whatever persuasion can't spin it to suit their agenda, and the public might actually read it.

As JY says the rejection in France was a rejection of yet more economic liberalisation because people are becoming tired of the gloves-off form of capitalism (neo-liberal capitalism) that promised prosperity for all, but has instead delivered prosperity into the hands of fewer and fewer people, while for the majority it's the scraps of lower wages and less job security. More people are starting to question the power and influence of UNELECTED, UNDEMOCRATIC and very powerful businesses to run and dictate their lives, and want ELECTED, DEMOCRATIC poiticians to do what we they are supposed to do, which is GOVERN.

Gorbachev could well be right when he said last week that Western capitalism is in needs it's own Perestroika.

The weakness of the euro does not bother me as we have one of the dtrongest economies in the world so I am fine. Mind you politically I am not happy with the French President at the moment.

Nietzsche said "that which does not destroy you will make you stronger".

The European Union is in its infancy, and it will take a little longer for its respective leaders and people's to forge a constitution that will be beneficial for all, and one that will continue the on-going peace and stability that is the current climate in Europeshire.

Vive le Euorpe and the world.

Preston.

Preston being that you are from the UK as well what is your view on the arguements between Frnace and the UK on the rebate and CAP. JY I was wondering wht your view of this is as well.

Well Chirac is in a very uncomfortable position since the rejection of the treaty by its people. Remember he decided to have it adopted by referendum.
Annoying Blair about the UK financial participation rebate is a good opportunity to divert the attention from him - I mean, in my opinion it is a political calculation in the first place.
Beyond that, Blair and Chirac have to find a compromise in their own interest (politically in their selfish interest and for the sake of our respective countries).
The UK don't want to pay more and France don't want to loose after a CAP reform. All right then - let's be intelligent on both sides.

would be happy for the UK to give up saome of the reabte but certainly not all of it after all we do give the most and take the least. But I think that Blair is on the righ path about all spending should be reviewed because right now France and Germany just seem to talk about what they can take from the UK while sidestepping what they take from the EU. I reackon some harsh words will be exchanged today at the meeting. I only hope that we can come to an agreement that helps all countries in the EU.

"Logically" the value of the dollar vs the euro is even too high yet. Given how depreciated the dollar is with the high indebtment of the US, it should be much lower. Not my point of view but the one of economists.

Just did a little currency conversion and for 200 dollars you will get around 165 Euros. That does not seem that strong, now for 200 British pound you will get around 300 Euros so the dollar is far from doing great in financial markets. The real strength is in sterling and Yen at the moment. mind you if I was American I would be more worried about the trade deficit as that might totally screw your economy up, worse case scenario is a recession.