Nidra Poller

To the surprise and dismay of mainstream political leaders on both right and left, French voters voted "No" in the May 29th referendum to ratify the treaty to establish a European Constitution. French rejection will put a halt to the forward march of the European Union — given the current state of European society, a good thing for the forward march of democracy.

What exactly is this Treaty for the establishment of a Constitution? The document is long and indigestible. Brave souls have in fact read it, specialists have analyzed it, but no compelling arguments are based on its intrinsic qualities. The choice morsels were spoon fed to TV audiences in sober clips that opened with the blue flag and its circle of stars, asked a question, then answered it with low fat citations from this or that Article. The immediate effect was soothing and reassuring.

But that was not the image that emerged from conversations with friends, acquaintances, neighbors, waiters, shopkeepers and their customers over the weeks preceding the vote. The overall impression was doubt and dismay. Formal aspects of the Constitution faded into the background. People explained that the French have to vote oui so we won’t look like cons (asses)… So we won’t be isolated… Because there’s no alternative, we have to go forward. They rarely mentioned a single detail about the type of government that would be established by this Constitution.

Some undecided voters seemed to be haunted by a very real disappointment in Europe as experienced in their daily lives. Not sure whether this Constitution, whatever it is, will make things better or worse, and unsure of where to place the blame--on Europe or on their own government or on the proverbial bad French character--for what they see as a general degradation of their situation, they feel vaguely disenfranchised. On the other side of the question, among the yea sayers, were self-confident, well-dressed, modern ladies and gentlemen who walk with a sure step in a modern world. They are not afraid of the future, feel at home in a globalized world, welcome competition…and probably will welcome Turkey into the EU with the same breezy confidence. They disparage retrograde voters who think they can opt out of Europe and snuggle cozily into a safe little France.

They would almost be convincing -- were it not for the dark clouds looming over Europe. If, instead of trudging through the Constitution, one reads the 43-page report drafted in 2003 by the High Level Advisory Group appointed by then European Commission President Romano Prodi, an utterly different picture emerges. The Euro-Mediterranean “Dialogue” is a masterpiece of abject surrender. The European Union functions therein as an intermediate stage of an ominous Eurabian project that calls for a meltdown of European culture and its recasting in a monumental paradise of cultural relativism…that closely resembles the Muslim umma. Isn’t this a more accurate vision of what the Union is preparing for its docile citizens? When subversive appeasement hides behind the veil of “Dialogue,” what unspeakable ambitions might be dissembled by the noble word “Constitution”?

If, as claimed, the Constitutional Treaty is a giant step forward in the creation of a United States of Europe, what exactly is the political system it enshrines? The sleek answer is: something better than what we’ve had this far. More United, more European, looking more like a government, stronger, able to speak with one voice and (explicitly or implicitly) heavy enough to counterbalance the overweening hyperpuissant arch-rival--the USA. Jack Lang, former socialist Minister of Culture, vaunts the Constitution: it will make Europe strong enough to stand up to China, India, the United States.

Behind the sturdy images of a forthright Europe on the road to a bright future lurks the shadow of a shameful anti-Semitism that has soaked into the very skin of European society. Economic stagnation and plus 10% unemployment eats away at France’s elegant foundations. Life has become harsh, violence of all sorts is on the rise. The strong euro is no help to French wage earners. Social services are breaking down. Anti-war pro-Palestinian anti-American activism has not even brought hollow victories. Man can not live by bluster alone.

Democracy is leaking out of this tattered Europe. As national sovereignty is handed up to the higher echelons of the European Union, citizens lose their grip on the affairs of state. For all its brand name institutions—parliament, executive, commission, president and now secretary of state—the EU does not have a democratic infrastructure. It is recreating something like an old fashioned European empire where the ruling classes hobnob together in feasts and palaces, and dictate their will to the people. In the absence of grass roots power, commoners, with no constructive means of expression, resort to the sullen refusal to work, freedom to throw a monkey wrench into the system, go on strike on a holiday weekend, burn down an occasional factory. Some serious analysts of the Constitutional Treaty describe it as a blueprint for gridlock. Neither streamlined nor democratic, a far cry from a system of checks and balances, it institutionalizes ingrained European mistrust; every initiative will be vulnerable to blockage regardless of its scope or thrust. Good old fashioned power politics will be played on the ruins of this fictitious harmony. And France still seems to cherish dreams of grandeur.

When all of this is said and done, is it good for the Jews? According to Claude Barouch, president of the UPJF (Jewish entrepreneurs and professionals union…that aspires to be a Jewish lobby in France) a stronger, more united Europe will be kinder to Israel, less biased in favor of the Palestinians, more mature and responsible; economically France has everything to gain from a stronger more assertive Europe; new member states will have a positive effect both economically and politically. He advised us to vote oui.

But a little handmade, unscientific, offbeat public opinion poll in my immediate vicinity contradicted this optimistic vision. Many people told me they planned to vote non to sanction Europe, with France in the forefront, for fomenting anti-Semitism, delegitimizing Israel, aligning itself with the enemies of the United States, and pandering to Yassir Arafat all his life, until his death, and beyond. When Eurodeputy François Zimeray succeeded, against overwhelming opposition, in mobilizing a demand for investigation of the use of EU funds generously donated to the Palestinians, the EU Commission sidetracked the investigation, whitewashed the PA. And Zimeray’s party kicked him down stairs and out of the Parliament. Europe, with no credible military defense, gloats in demonizing the United States and Israel because they stand up to Islamic jihad. And even before the Constitution is ratified, the European Commission has chosen the infamous Javier Solana as European Foreign Minister.

Is there any common measure between the grouch vote of nostalgic crypto-peasants and the “parochial” vote of French Jews and neo-conservatives who want to stop the European machine in its tracks? Many voters said non to the Treaty for the establishment of a European Constitution because they believe in democracy, cherish Europe’s Jewish and Christian values, and trust national sovereignty more than EU oligarchy. For these non voters, the Treaty for a Constitution is more like a Munich agreement and nothing like the timeless, elegant, document framed by America’s Founding Fathers.

Nidra Poller is a novelist and journalist who lives in France.