NYC Letter: Why Won't This Die?

The once and defunct EU constitution required all member states to ratify it to come into force. To be absolutely clear about this, complete unanimity among the member states was needed. Founding member France nixed it. Founding member Netherlands said NEE.

France's vote alone made unanimity impossible. The Dutch vote doubly so. Yet over a month after the Dutch vote we come across this curious headline:

LUXEMBOURG 'YES' IMPORTANT FOR EUROPE: FRANCE

PARIS July 11, 2005 (AFP) - "This is a remarkable result because beyond Luxembourg, it's important for all of Europe. It shows that we're not in a 'no' phase," [France's European affairs minister Catherine] Colonna told private radio RTL.

She added that the victory for the 'yes' camp in Luxembourg in a weekend referendum "shows that the European project can still convince people".

Colonna said she did not believe the text was "dead" following the French and Dutch rejections, but ruled out any revote in France.

"I can't imagine how it would be possible to have the French vote a second time on the same text," she told RTL.

And we had thought just recently that the French government had come around to the novelty of representing the will of the French people. Just how does Mdm. Colonna propose attaining the necessary unanimity? Is France signalling she may walk away from her EU honeypot?

"The constitution is not dead," [Former French foreign minister Michel Barnier] told France 2 television. "This proves that this text has been received in a much more positive light in other countries."

To which we respectably say, "Yes it is" and "So what?", respectively. Well, the "what" apparently is that Luxembourg is now the very center of the universe:

July 11, 2005 (Guardian) - "If Luxembourg had said 'no' the constitution would have been dead," [Jean-Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg prime minister] declared last night. As Luxembourg has said 'yes' the process can go ahead. There is a way for the European constitution to be adopted.

"If Luxembourg had said 'no', Europe would have been in an ultra-serious crisis. Now that Luxembourg has voted yes, Europe is still in crisis, but there is a silver lining."

Mr Juncker's remarks are likely to provoke raised eyebrows in many European capitals. The Luxembourg prime minister earlier concluded that the French and Dutch no votes were not a rejection of the constitution but were motivated by other concerns.

Yesterday he appeared to suggest that only Luxembourg has a veto.

Dear God, thank you for stalwart Luxembourg! M. Juncker & co. have averted a Europe in ultra-serious crisis and happily there is only a Europe in crisis to sort out. And not a serious crisis at that.

We have noted elsewhere the Telegraph's prescient editorial anticipating the geopolitical shift to Luxembourg -- or the first country to vote YES following the French NON:

The genius of Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman was to design a system in which supreme power was wielded by unelected officials, and in which the peoples were presented with a series of faits accomplis. When, in 1992, they got their first No vote in Denmark's referendum on Maastricht, our masters were too set in their ways to consider respecting the result, and so pushed on regardless. They will do the same thing today.

MEP for South East England, Daniel Hannan, is unsurprised as well by the undead constitution.

IT'S FULL STEAM AHEAD FOR EU CONSTITUTION,
EVEN AFTER 'NO' VOTES

While British ministers chunter on about the document being "in deep freeze", other countries are plunging ahead with ratification. Since the No votes, three nations - Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg - have gone on to approve the text. All right, these may not be the three mightiest powers in Europe, but their endorsement means that 13 of 25 members have now said Yes.

Eurocrats see this number as enormously significant. "It is a strong signal that a majority of the member states thinks that the constitution correlates to their expectations," said the Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, on hearing that Luxembourg had ratified. ... The European Parliament has duly set up a committee to look at how to proceed with implementation.

Formal ratification by all 25 states is regarded in Brussels as a technicality. To all intents and purposes, the EU is carrying on as though the constitution were already in force. Most of the institutions that it would have authorised are either up and running already, or in the process of being established.

Whenever a chunk of the constitution comes before my committee in the European Parliament for approval, I ask: "Where in the existing treaties does it say that we can do this?"

"Where does it say we can't?" reply my federalist colleagues, giggling at their own cleverness... Pressed for a proper answer, they point to a flimsy cats-cradle of summit communiqués, Council resolutions and commission press releases. The more honest of them go on to explain that this is how the EU has always operated: first it extends its jurisdiction into a new area and then, often years later, it authorises its power-grab in a retrospective treaty.

The 25 member governments, they argue, have endorsed the constitution; so has the European Parliament and so, as of last Sunday, have most national parliaments.

Except for Spain, every EU member to ratify the constitution to date has relied on a parliamentary vote.

I carry on feebly with my protest: how can they wish away the referendum results? Surely it counts for something that people have voted No.

"They weren't really voting against the constitution," I am told. "They were voting against Chirac. Or against Turkey. Or possibly against Anglo-Saxon liberalism". Against anything, apparently, except the proposition actually on the ballot paper.

Then again, the EU has never been especially interested in public opinion. The ruling ideology - peace in Europe through political integration - is thought to be too important to be left to the ballot box. If a plebiscite elicits the wrong response from the plebs, they must be suffering from what Marxists used to call "false consciousness". They misunderstand their true interests. They need better information, more education. And, in the meantime, the project goes on.

[Emphases added.]

Is there no way to kill this unkillable soul-less document? To stop the unstoppable zombie Eurocrats feeding off the ballot boxes of Europe? To credit France with single-handedly banjaxing the EU project and leave it at that?