Charlemagne: Those other referendums

Date: 24/04/04

The many hurdles that lie in the way of ratifying the constitution

NO SOONER had Tony Blair announced that Britain is to have a referendum on the proposed European Union constitution than the Brussels air was thick with accusations of betrayal. The public line is that this is a decision for Britain alone, the will of the people must be respected, etc. Privately, however, senior EU people are spitting. Their panic is understandable. At least in theory, it takes just one of the soon-to-be-25 EU members to refuse to ratify the constitution and the whole thing becomes null and void - hardly a cheering thought for negotiators struggling to tie up the final details by mid-June.

And yet not all partisans of the constitution see consulting the people as an abomination. There is a principled, pro-European group pressing for simultaneous referendums across Europe. Their hope is that this would not only definitively legitimise the document. It might also create that most elusive of things: a genuine pan-European political debate.

It is a nice idea. But reality is likely to be a lot messier. Only four countries are absolutely certain to have referendums: Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and now Britain. Another four seem almost certain to: the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain. Poland seems likely to join them, and France may yet follow; others are still considering the matter. Yet a pan-European debate is unlikely. The votes will take place at different times, and different aspects of the long and complex constitutional text will prove controversial in different countries.

The Dutch referendum campaign is likely to spend an unusual amount of time on the “stability and growth pact” that sets fiscal rules for members of the euro. The Dutch government was outraged when France and Germany persuaded other euro members to set aside the pact because it was proving inconvenient. The Dutch have been campaigning ever since to get tougher provisions on budget deficits written into the constitution, but with little success. That makes it easier to portray the EU as a club in which bigger members break the rules. More generally, the Dutch are fed up that, in net terms, they pay more per head into the EU budget than does any other country. A Dutch rejection of the constitution is a distinct possibility. And it would be a heavy blow, because the Netherlands is one of the six founder members of the European project and has never had hang-ups about “surrendering sovereignty” to Brussels.

Where the Dutch debate will concentrate on the euro, Irish “No” campaigners plan to focus on other issues such as defence, taxation and criminal law. They will highlight provisions for a “common defence policy” and a mutual-defence guarantee, both of which seem to imperil Irish neutrality. They will point to hints that corporate taxes might in future be set by majority vote. And they will raise hell about provisions to harmonise aspects of European criminal law. But the Irish government thinks it can get most objectionable provisions out of the text in the remaining negotiations.

The British and Danish referendums will have their own flavour, with opponents pressing charges that a “European superstate” is under construction. Jens-Peter Bonde, a prominent Danish Eurosceptic, argues that the constitution lays the legal basis for a European state, by formally asserting the supremacy of European over national law for the first time. British Eurosceptics will make the same argument, and also highlight other areas where the constitution could be portrayed as usurping the functions of the nation-state: for example, its assertion that “member states shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy”. In both Britain and Denmark, the “Yes” campaign will respond that articles about legal supremacy and foreign policy are mere codifications of existing practice - indeed, the foreign-policy one simply repeats the 1992 Maastricht treaty, signed by a British Conservative government.

Whereas the Irish are quietly confident about winning a referendum, the Poles are quietly hysterical about losing one. Until recently the Polish government was fighting like fury against proposals to get rid of the disproportionately large voting weights that current rules give to Poland and Spain. Under enormous pressure from France and Germany, the Poles are now prepared to give way. But even Polish pro-Europeans are pessimistic about the chances of persuading the electorate to accept a diminution in Polish power, combined with more integration. Spain too has had to make painful concessions about voting weights. But the mood there is different, following the election of a Socialist government determined to reassert Spain's European credentials. So a Spanish rejection seems unlikely.

A slow-bicycle race

If the French follow the lead of perfidious Albion and hold a vote, their referendum campaign could be the oddest of the lot. Anxiety that France and the French language are losing ground as the EU expands would form the back-drop to a campaign in which the constitution may be attacked from the far-right and the far-left, as well as by some Gaullists and socialists. The right would stress the loss of national sovereignty and influence within the EU, and would also chuck in concern about possible Turkish membership. The left would argue that the constitution institutionalises an Anglo-Saxon neo-liberal order.

The fact that France could vote against the constitution may yet persuade Jacques Chirac to renege on his previous half-promise to hold a referendum, despite Mr Blair's decision. For those countries that have made the fateful choice, however, the question of timing looms large. The governments that are most confident of victory - Ireland, Portugal and Spain - are likeliest to go first. Those that most fear defeat - Denmark, Britain and perhaps Poland and France - cower at the back, hoping that some other country takes the odium of being the first to say no. But there is a snag. Not everybody can vote last.

Analysis feature looks at the many hurdles that lie in the way of ratifying the draft European Constitution especially if many Member States hold referendums.

• Primary Source