I was convinced that “no” would prevail in France because the liberal policy have annoyed the French for quite a long time. They could vote “no” because they felt Europeans, and championed the policy of solidarity with the rest of the European countries. The “no” accounted for the majority in France and the left wing. Many European friends helped us in the campaign. We made a call to Europe from the Greens to say “no”. They are happy that our success has given them the possibility to hold debates in their countries. The German representatives of the Greens in Bundestag and the European Parliament made statements in favor of the Treaty but the party has not organized any internal referendum. The Greens from France suggested holding a referendum in all green parties from Europe. It is a shame that such initiative was not successful.
The extreme right wing was weakened. Its members were not the ones who carried out the campaign. It should be pointed out that the French “no” was not nationalist. Excellent news. There was a mobilization among the citizens to build Europe. For the first time, the citizens thought about the European Union and said: it is a common benefit. We offer our “no” to the rest of Europe. We will ask the European Council in June to thoroughly review the Constitution. The items, which do not fit in it, must disappear, that is, a third part of the political spheres of the European Union. The first one should be reduced and the Charter of Fundamental Rights completed.
It is spoken today about a serious European crisis but the same could have been said when Jacques Chirac decided not to respect the stability pact. Gerhard Schröder did the same and the European Council paid attention to them. The advocates of the Constitution reacted as autistic, the voters should be respected but instead, it was said that nothing was possible. Those who act as such should do a different job. This referendum was not a vote on domestic policy. The people want a new Europe; the government will continue with a liberal policy. A true will is needed to build Europe and find a space of solidarity.

The French “no” to the European Constitution was not an accident, but the result of a debate as few of them have taken place in the history of that country. The citizens were able to know the main articles as well as the statements made by the advocates from both sides. But they failed to perform an exegesis exercise in favor or against the Constitutional Treaty due to a specific or several of its 448 articles. A constitution is a contract subscribed among the citizens and its terms are less relevant than what it promises. Rejecting the Constitutional Treaty showed above all that most of the French did not want or no longer wanted Europe. The message of “no” is the following: the causes lack of importance as long as we vote for “no”.
This voting was organized by a man that will go down in history as the Dr. Strangelove of the French policy, who used against himself the dissolution and later the referendum. The challenge was mainly linked to an idea, an idea that had to be crushed. Due to nationalism, xenophobia, dogmatism or nostalgia, the advocates of “no” wanted to get rid of this Europe that is building the horizon, disturbs habits and imposes changes. Others, who were not anti-Europeans, were convinced that it was possible to change Europe. Actually, the only possible Europe is the one that we are willing to build together since it is a fragile building based upon a commitment that France has just broken up.
The “no” was also a victory of the protest at all levels. It is just as if we should live from now on in a democracy of generalized discontent. Leading discontent is unemployment. Europe paid the consequences when it helped to save millions of jobs. It is true that the movement of companies is a fact and for the victims of these movements the consequences are terrible. However, we fail to see through which touch of magic wand the fact of having voted “no” would oblige our European friends to come up with a major plan to tackle unemployment, as indicated by Henri Emmanuelli. Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries proved that the countries could influence on their own labor market through the improvement in the cost and quality of work.
What are the elements to keep from the different protests, even the desire to have a fight as expressed by the winners on May 29? Who of the spokesmen of “no” will take most of the credits? Do we need to consider, as Nicolas Sarkozy, that the victory of “no” imposes “strong” reforms, which will not save the French “social model” through substantial changes? Or is it necessary then to have as the only slogan the status quo since the fear to changes is also part of the crux of the “no”? What part of the message to make prevail when it comes to the chapter of French identity: the one from the sovereignty advocates or socialists? The fear to unemployment caused a new denunciation from abroad. The president of ATTAC even got to come up with denunciations in his columns against Spain, Portugal and Greece. This attitude enables us to measure up the European and internationalist fervor of the “left wing” advocates of no. The left wing has been roughly affected by such result that ends the European consensus of the time of François Mitterrand. Regardless of what is said, the left wing anti-Europeans not only echoed the statements of Jean-Marie Le Pen and Philippe de Villiers, but also there were occasions in which they shared their arguments. The French left wing runs the risk of getting paralyzed for long time due to the European issue, just as it happened to the British Labour Party before the arrival of Tony Blair.
The right wing comes out less affected since it had the support of 80% of its voters. The change of government might give it a new impetus. It remains to be seen the main issue: what policy to adopt to respond to the “no”? Whatever the rebellious wave may be interpreted, it means that the French system does not work. It is high time to become aware of it and adopt a solution. If we want to find a merit to this sad “no”, let us make out of it the end of the consensus in favor of the status quo and hope that the change brings back to the French their desire for Europe.

On the occasion of the referendum, the leftist electorate has launched cries of fear, anguish and rage in front of the insanity that prevails in the world and the incompetence of those who has led us over the past two decades. Some leaders have taken advantage of the situation and, at the end, we have witnessed a general disaster and an epidemic of populism that has swept with everything: European construction, its expansion, the elites, regulation of liberalism, reformism, internationalism and even generosity.
Europe has lost all the referendums, one within the other. Le Pen’s xenophobia - whose steps the leftists have strangely followed - made the referendum about the expansion fail. The lower France has chosen to sanction those who are for a decision-making system that authorizes the creation of a political Europe with the referendum on the elites. The upper France and the lower France, the well-known pair of populist periods. We went completely wild when all political classes accepted to followed, as arguments, the ATTAC slogans that expected to break with capitalism, today re-baptized as liberalism. France said “No” in the referendum on liberalism. The lie about the renegotiation gave France a sense of existence. Actually, either France votes again or the political Europe ends because the risk of renunciation to the European political ambition is at its peak. The “No” also won in the referendum about the social issue while the European Constitution was supposed to strengthen this aspect in Europe.
In order to have this master piece of masochism win, besides the “sovereignty advocates” of always, they also needed a political class raised by ostriches, which has been lying for many years, power incompetents - including a president in power - and complete cynics like a former socialist Prime Minister. The French know that things are not going well in our country. Sadly, this morning, they are worse.

France’s vote in the European Constitutional Treaty was, above all, a protest against the forces of economic globalization. The “NO” voters thought that by rejecting a set of technical amendments to European rules they could hold back a threatening future. The French elites who supported the “Yes” are devastated.
This “No” is a rejection of the text, of Europe, of the liberal way of life and of Jacques Chirac. Fear of the future is always an important political force. Europe will go on as before but European politicians will waste more time soft-pedaling globalization than explaining it to their people.
Chirac will be the main victim of the May 29 vote. His mistakes go beyond his decision to put the constitution to a vote, although it was not necessary. Chirac’s real failure was his inability over ten years in power to show the French that it was necessary to make changes in order to preserve their way of life. Chirac never dared to tell the French that they could not maintain their living standards and keep the rigid rules of the labor market.
This is what Chirac’s probable successor, Nicolas Sarkozy has understood. Unfortunately, the French do not trust the suggested “Anglo-Saxon model”. It is understandable that the French say “No” to Chirac but they should say “Yes” to a politician who will allow them to build a bridge into the future.

Certainly, the French vote on May 29 represents a serious obstacle for the process of European integration. Its repercussion should not be minimized but it is not convenient either to exaggerate it. Instead, it is essential that we understand the reasons for that vote. National factors had an influence but the decisive element was the lack of understanding of the proposed model.
The acceleration of the expansion process, the sense of unease among certain economic sectors, the distrust for liberal reforms and the increasing fear caused by the migratory pressure are some of the reasons that led a founding member state to say “No”. These fears have been increased by the tendency of accusing Brussels always that a difficult decision has to be made. Today, we have to face a delicate situation that may turn even worse in the event that the Dutch also say “No”.
Italy has chosen the parliamentary option to ratify the text, which is completely democratic. There is no sense in organizing a referendum about the text. The ratification process should continue and the French vote should not represent a veto. During the holding of the European Council on June 16, the situation has to be evaluated but only at the end of the ratification process will we be able to get any conclusions. The French “No’ does not mean the death of the second Treaty of Rome. Our voters demand more from Europe to face the new emerging challenges. This is also what our American allies and our neighbors want. The European Union has to have a strong legal structure but also values. The French “No” may have public opinion rethink about this aspect.

France has voted against! Is that final? It’s up to Europe’s behavior. Naturally, the French “no” would become a tragedy if Europe resigns itself to it. One thing is sure: electors deeply wished to wreck the government. The fact that changes are being made within the government proves that the current situation was recognized in the highest political circles, despite it was too late and improperly done.
France is not an exception. Europe is always the scapegoat of national politics. They talk about “the Brussels’ ones” as though it were an extra-European power, when all that has to be decided must be done under the consent of the member States. What will happen now? The European Council has important decisions to make in two weeks. The unwavering wish to go forward will be more valuable than any speech. Europe is progressing. Europe has left behind past mistakes, its thirst for domination, its blind believes, the military solution of international problems. This new common living culture has already become a reality from long ago. Instead of the law of the jungle, it must be the authority of the law and the responsibility of the strongest towards the weakest which must prevail. This must also be Europe’s attitude towards the creation of a more just new world order.
The ratification process should go on. First of all, in order to achieve a balance, just as it is defined in the Treaty, in the event this is ratified by at least 20 member countries. France will then have the possibility to reflect about its decision, and also have an opportunity for a new referendum. Germany, as a partner country close to France, should not express its opinion with words but with facts. The parties in the Bundestag - which will soon be renewed - should prove that they are openly in favor of the decisions already made by the European Council, and that they will adopt a common position regarding the financial decisions to be discussed at the Council in June. During that European summit, nobody is to think first of elections and the upcoming electoral fight in Germany, diverting away from a common position. And this in the interests of Europe and Germany.

Following the French “no”, the British Euro-skeptics were radiant. The French had never been so popular within the conservative party. However, history will judge that vote quite differently.
After 5 decades trying to free Europe from its old populist, protectionist and nationalist demons, they return by force at the risk of generating serious consequences for the national interests of the British. A moment of reflection will make us understand that it’s impossible to simultaneously reconcile Jean-Marie Le Pen’s racist position and the hatred against the trade of the Trotskyites and that of the unions in the public sector. Nevertheless, the right-wing and left-wing French who demonstrated against that text agree on one point: the Constitutional Treaty is excessively British. For the first time in 50 years, Great Britain has led the drawing-up of an European Treaty. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing was the public figure among the editors, but John Kerr was the real mastermind behind this.
That treaty should never have been described as a constitution. It is a text that will not of course dictate the national policies of the States, but nobody in Paris has the courage to admit that the French problems are the result of a policy followed nationally and not caused by Brussels. The French “no” will unleash the protectionist and nationalist forces in France, which will affect Europe.
The French “no” is serious, but it should not prevent the government from stating the issue of the British relations in Europe.

What happened with the French referendum is a real tragedy. The best thing about this Constitution is that it existed already and it could have generated an agglutinating and mobilizing force. They would have been times of prosperity. There are still new elections where voters want to give their own government a lesson. All the details of this constitution would have been renegotiable in a common political process.
Rejecting the entire Constitution shows poor common sense. With a right-wing Chauvinist dose and a class struggle speech dose, which has no place here, no Constitution would have been accepted. I think that from now on, the national media should dedicate half of the information to Europe, and the other half to national issues. The majority of the citizens that voted don’t even know for what or against what they did it. I think the problem lies in it.

France’s decision is bad for Russia, because if had accepted the Constitution, the number of negotiators with which Russia would have to deal with would have been reduced to the minimum. The European Union would have had a unified and consolidated policy about a great number of internal and external matters. To come to an agreement with the European Union, our minister of foreign relations would have been able to dial a single telephone number and meet with a single person: the person responsible for directing EU foreign relations.
The consequences of this referendum will clarify the reality of the current political process in Europe. That process can only continue if it responds to the interests of all countries. At the moment, France is demonstrating that investment in workforce integration is not always profitable. The new members, our neighbors in particular, will understand that European integration is not so simple. The political elites of those countries will be better able to evaluate the perspectives, risks and limits of European construction. The result of the vote in France will make them to stop seeing everything in rose colors and cause their dreams to disappear. They themselves must reach their own conclusions, Moscow should not influence that.

Some say that the ‘no’ result of the referendum in France is positive for Russia, since they consider that while continued disagreement exists within the heart of Europe, Moscow’s margin of maneuver is greater. I don’t agree with that. A strong European Union has strategic interest for us, and to fulfill those interests, it is necessary to have a constitution. This it is based on Russian principles that are advantageous. In our country, for example, the principle of protecting national minorities is defended. The European Union would be more interested in the problem of minorities in Lithuania and Estonia. That constitution is based on the idea of the expansion of democracy, as well as other fundamental questions of importance for the democratization of Russia and the development of the international cooperation.
Some new countries have historical complaints against Russia and are creating problems for our integration into the European Union. The Constitution offers the possibility to include Russia in those integration plans. We need a new “roadmap” technique and new judicial bases. The main difficulty that exists between Russia and the European Union is not the confrontation between two systems with different values, but the crisis of a system of relationships whose objectives are not defined. To speak of our entrance in the European Union is of course premature, but in the long term, I do not see any reason that Russia, if it enjoys a flourishing and democratic climate, cannot be a member. The Constitution would allow it.