The No Vote Was So Typically French

This article is the point of view of our friend Véronique de Rugy, who is a convinced libertarian. It gives a glimpse of the position of some libertarians after the "no" vote at the European Constitution referendum.


Should we cry or should we laugh? French voters recently rejected the proposed European constitution. The rejection left President Jacques Chirac in political limbo and the bureaucrats in Brussels in shock.

French voters were concerned the EU had grown too fast in recent years and they opposed giving more power to the bureaucrats in Brussels to regulate their everyday life. They were also voting against the French government for failing to strengthen the economy and reduce unemployment. But that does not mean that a free market and a free society will now reign in France. Quite the opposite.

But sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reason. As a French citizen, I am delighted that my countrymen voted no. The 70,000-word Constitution is nothing short of a manifesto for centralization with the bureaucrats in Brussels sitting atop a huge powerful federation. For instance, the Constitution enumerates many areas where Brussels will have exclusive competence over nation states but also suggests that it will decide on a case by case basis when to exercise its powers outside its exclusive authority.

Moreover, the document is a long list of "rights" to services provided by the state rather than a simple list of rights to protect individuals from the coercive power of the state. According to the Constitution, EU citizens would have a right to education, preventive healthcare, a family, housing assistance, and even the right to husband reindeers.

Equally delightful is that this vote is a slap in the face of the French political elite and the arrogant European Commission. For years, the unelected EU bureaucracy has succeeded in expanding its powers without ever seeking voters' approval. For one thing, EU voters are rarely asked for their opinion. In the last 15 years and before the vote on the Constitution, only 2 referenda were held in Europe. And even in the case of the adoption of this Constitution, EU bureaucrats bragged that nine countries had ratified the document even though only Spain had done it through referendum. The eight other countries did not bother asking voters for approval and turned to the parliament for ratification.

To add insult to injury, even when voters are asked to express their opinion, they better vote according to EU leaders' wishes. The EU will not take no for an answer and always makes sure that inconvenient popular votes are reversed. Recall, in 1992 when Denmark voted no to the Maastricht treaty that changed the common EU market into the European Union, it had to revote until the treaty was adopted. The same thing happened to Irish voters in 2001 when they rejected
the Nice treated expanding the EU from 15 to 25 members.

Yet I am still in shocked by the reasons behind the French vote. I was in France for the two weeks prior to the referendum and I got to listen to the debate. To put it mildly, it was depressing. In favor of the Constitution, you had the so-called right wing party of Jacques Chirac and the socialist party led by Francois Holland. By American standards, though, both would be comfortable on the far left of Democratic party. On the other side, you had the communists, the green and the neo-Nazi party of Jean Marie Le Pen. In other words, it is a debate between moderate socialists and extreme leftists, a debate where communist ideas are taken seriously and given consideration.

Also, the opponents and supporters were strongly united on one issue: both wanted to maintain French big government policies. On the no side, the argument was that the Constitution was a free-market, neo-liberal (in the classical, Adam Smith, meaning of the term) Anglo-Saxon document designed to strip France of its social welfare model. Chirac on the other hand reassured voters that the Constitution was actually a protection against free-market policies and capitalism. As Jean-Louis Borloo, the Minister for social cohesion (yes they have a ministry for that) explained "This treaty is everything but liberal this is why I ask that you vote "yes" on May 29th."

Of course, Jacques Chirac and his socialist friends were right. This Constitution is a spiting image of the French system, which is why it is just as well that it was rejected. At the end of the day this vote shows that French people don't want less government or sound economic policies. The French have no understanding of why the economic situation in their country is so bad. They
don't realize that big government is why France fell from the fifth richest country in Europe to the twelfth richest country - just ahead of socialist Greece.

The EU Constitution would have exported the French model to the rest of Europe. This would have been bad news for Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the pro-market nations of Eastern Europe. By rejecting the Constitution, France may not have helped itself, but it has saved the rest of Europe from more statism.