In Central Europe, the French disapproval of the Constitution is well received by those who are skeptical towards Europe, but most of the population are the prey of uncertainty and even feel betrayed. The project of European integration is, to a great extent, a French invention and the European Convention was presided over by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. For the smaller European countries, European construction was a kind of compensation for all what France did wrong during the first half of the 20th century: the Treaty of Versailles and the Munich Accords. The European integration supported by France aimed at dissolving and democratizing Germany in Europe. The European integration under France’s direction created an irresistible model of prosperity and democracy for all Europeans who had remained locked behind the iron curtain.
That is why today we are upset by France’s decision to turn its back on European construction for selfish reasons that are not fit for a country with global ambitions. The referendum about the European Constitution was somehow a referendum on the EU expansion. That is why it is so hard to accept the selfishness hidden behind the French “No”. Over the last 15 years, the new EU member countries imposed dramatic reforms upon themselves to become part of the Union. France and the other members of the “old Europe” encouraged them in this process but demanded that they fulfill the integration criteria. However, France refuses to accept these reforms. If we analyze the issue from the Central European point of view, the European project lost its charm for the French when they realized that an extended European Union would not be able to co-finance its social State.
By rejecting the European Constitution, the French also turn their back on Germany, which continues to arose fears among many central-Europeans. Central Europe has the right to wonder if such a humiliation of Germany could not bring about a change of its policy. What would happen if Germany now decided, after the French slap in the face and its economic situation, to reduce its contribution to the EU budget?
The new member countries that supported the war of Iraq were humiliated by France but most of them will eventually overcome the humiliation. The France-Germany duet offered them certain guarantee of finding prosperity and security in a Europe united thanks to the project of the European Constitution. France proved that its own interests are more important than European interests. It will be hard to overcome this disappointment.

The Constitution in its current form can not be saved. A new referendum in the Netherlands or in France is unthinkable. That is the way it happened with Maastricht, with treaties that can be modified individually, but a new referendum would be a farce. The suspension of the referendum in the United Kingdom represents a third “No” and reinforces the domino effect although it is not a real “No”. We should also expect a “No” from Denmark and Luxembourg. Tony Blair does not want to link his political career to the Constitution. That is why he puts all the blame on the French and the Dutch. Probably, most of the English would have also voted for the “No”. The last surveys showed that 70% were in favor of the “No”. Thus, it is no longer possible to blame Blair. As to domestic policy, it is a good move; for Europe, in the political field, it is a failure. Going on with the ratification process would only mean extending the suffering. An increasing pessimism is the last thing we need. Some people have even started to doubt the euro.
The European summit next week could serve to stop the over-dramatization of the situation by dividing this Constitution - which would deprive it of its Constitution status. The biggest mistake was calling this document a “Constitution”. This pompous title deceived the people. They thought they had to accept a European state and that was not the case. The French voted against the Constitution because they considered it too liberal; the Dutch did it because they thought it was very little liberal, bureaucratic and to protectionist. Both countries fear an excessive immigration. In order to get out of this situation we need a rapid decision, we should not lose our confidence in the European Union or in the euro as it would cause instability.

After focusing the text in its constitutional elements, a general European referendum could strengthen the European thinking and mobilize its citizens. Another solution would be that politicians acknowledge their mistake in calling this treaty a “Constitution”. A summer break and a division of the text into two or three parts would allow for a European vote as it is done with normal European treaties, in national Parliaments. The French and the Dutch said “No” for reasons that obstruct any commitment and that have nothing of constitutional. It has no sense that the remaining nations continue voting on something that will never be implemented. To resign ourselves and let things continue as they are would be fatal. We need to confirm a dynamics and a political willingness. The European Union still has a great future ahead. We must simply believe it because, otherwise, it would never come true.

In the face of an arrogant old regime, the winds of democracy can be liberating. And not just in the Middle East. Whatever the outcome of the French and Dutch referendums, the debate about the European Constitutional Treaty and the possibility of a “No” vote, represented a liberating experience for the Europeans.
Let us leave aside the dubious merits of the text that even the traditionally pro-European The Economist rejects for its centralizing nature. Anyway, the debate had nothing to do with it but with confidence in the elites. It is hard for an American to appreciate how out-of-touch the European elites are. For example, let us recall that Valéry Giscard d’Estaing affirmed that his 448-article constitution was easily read ->http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/rubri...]. The Dutch Minister for European Affairs, a supporter of the text, at least acknowledged that too many important decisions regarding Europe had been made without consulting the people.
The referendums opened up the prospect for a wider debate about the failure of Europe’s welfare states, about the obstacles for growth and mobility, about the failures of immigration policies, about European anti-Americanism and the European Union’s inaction in the promotion of democracy and freedom around the world. Right now, we could compare Europe to the United States of the early 1990s, just before Rudolph Giuliani, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich put things in place in the American political life. Today, Nicolas Sarkozy and other European neoconservative and neo-liberal leaders embody the so much expected European political renovation.
The “No” offers the possibility of a new hope in Europe. Vive la France ! [1]

The humiliating defeat of Jacques Chirac pleased a large number of Americans. William Kristol shouted «Long Live France!» and Radek Sikorski, of the American Enterprise Institute, said that the result was positive for transatlantic relations as it weakened the most anti-American of all European leaders. Official reactions were not so open but it is certain that some officials, at least in the Pentagon and in the office of the Vice President, smile at the state of confusion that prevails in France.
However, the Americans should hold back their applause before they regret it. They will regret it when they realize that 55% of the French people who rejected Chirac and the new Constitution did it for reasons completely opposite to those of the Americans who applauded. Instead of an improvement in the relations, the French “No” could mean a widening of the transatlantic gap. The main reason of the Americans’ recent anger towards Chirac - his opposition to the war of Iraq - has nothing to do with his defeat. On the contrary, the French think that the opposition of Jacques Chirac to George W. Bush is the last positive thing of their president. The nomination of Dominique de Villepin for the post of Prime Minister should dispel all hopes in Washington. It is true that leaders who oppose the war, like Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder, have seen their popularity fall, but the same has happened in the last 18 months to those who supported it, like José-María Aznar, Silvio Berlusconi and Tony Blair. We witnessed a renovation of relations between Washington and Paris after the enchanting offensive of the new Bush administration but the arrival of Dominique de Villepin in Matignon will put an end to it.
The message of the French has nothing to do with foreign policy, but with economy. And, contrary to what the Americans would wish, the French are not tired of excessive regulations, too high taxes and protectionism. If Villepin pays attention to the demands of the electorate, there will be more regulations. In addition, more bad news, this rejection of the Treaty will lead to a period of uncertainty in transatlantic relations. In the future, when the United States seeks the support of Europe in regards to international affairs, it will find the Europeans very busy, working for the institutional future of the Union. We should not disregard either the impact of the “No” on another of the Americans’ key objectives in Europe: the expansion of the EU and the inclusion of the US’s friends and allies in Eastern Europe, and eventually Turkey. The victory of the “No” is a huge setback for the Union’s prospect of extending prosperity and democratic stability to the East.
The Americans must admit that the rejection of the text is a failure for the United States.

In my new book, Le retour de l’Histoire, I try to understand what began with the end of the Cold War. It was not only the end of the Yalta system but also the end of the State system whose modern version appeared in Europe in 1648. That was what got my interest. I also added my impressions, fruit of my practical experience as Foreign Affairs Minister. It is also a response to Francis Fukuyama’s vision of the Cold War and the “end of history”. I feel history is returning. The recent events in Europe and the rejection of the Constitution prove it once more. It is a long and winding road and we can not avoid history. This book is not the end but an effort to draw the main guidelines that rule the international system, aimed at people concerned about foreign policy. I am not going to fight to remain in my post. It is not over until the last whistle.
We ratified the Constitution in Germany and in other nine countries but we need the support to be unanimous. I criticized the referendum but these debates are over. We have to analyze the consequences. For me, it is clear that many things lie ahead of Europe linked to domestic policy or to globalization. We have not accepted that it is a reunification of Europe that we did not choose but that was defined by the events of 1989-1990. The Europeans sometimes need crises that they later manage to resolve. I work hard so that elections take place as they should and I would be a fool if I thought otherwise. Surveys are not favorable right now but I do not have any reason to resign myself, on the contrary.

The peoples of France and The Netherlands already demonstrated, and the European politicians should think about it. There were several reasons for a “No”, but the corroboration is clear: there is disappointment regarding the European Union. Europe is too much exposed to criticism. This has created a vicious circle where politicians who, despite their calling themselves pro-Europeans, launch populist attacks against Brussels. Jacques Chirac also made the mistake of putting the blame of his political problems on Europe without highlighting the advantages as well.
Nevertheless, quite a few electors voted against the European integration. The text was not rejected for its institutional proposals. The European Union, and the peace and liberties that it offers are considered as achievements, and that was also taken into account. Today, however, the treaty is going through a difficult situation and it needs pondering about in the next European summit. The institutional reforms foreseen in the text could increase the effectiveness of the European Union. The necessary conditions must be prepared for the peoples to be ready to accept them.
The British presidency should work in order that the French and Dutch “no” turns into a “yes” to a new Europe. The challenge is not an easy one regarding the populist reforms. Europeans will have to understand that the reforms to be made do not aim to flood Europe with the American influence. This is the clarification work Tony Blair must do upon taking on the presidency of the European Union.

This electoral uprising coldly announced that May of 1968, forces us to face prohibited issues in our economic, social and European policies. What caused the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty? What consequences might it bring? What to do now?
Rather than to national or political issues, the voting result was due to a refusal of the bureaucratic creation of a unique market. The “political integration” words - the Holy Grail for some - sounded as a threat to others. It was spread against the European Union population as a moral debt without any further discussion. The application of a generalized competition at times where France has not managed to decrease its unemployment rate was disastrous. The fact of calling this treaty a “Constitution” deteriorated the expectations and fears even more. All in all there were, of course, the context of the French domestic policy, the feeling of not having been understood or heard, the incidents of the campaign and the demagogy of the “no’s”. In conclusion, there were 15 422 000 votes in favor of the “no”, very soon followed by 62% of Dutch voters and the British shock of their own referendum, which bore out the fact that it was not only a French but a European problem as well.
The French people have not become anti-European, but they feel discontent with Europe. What worsened everything was rather the stubbornness to laugh all patriotic feelings to scorn, and present, as xenophobia, any concerns for the expansion. All criticisms were scornfully ignored. All this, together with the social insecurity, the identity-related uncertainty, the feeling of democratic usurpation, finally prevailed and led the French to strike so hard. The paradox lies in the fact that the editors of the European Constitutional Treaty (ECT) thought that they had come to an acceptable commitment. I also did. The future will prove that the French remain open to a European project, no matter how poorly reasonable its reformulation might be.
The social question posed by this vote is more difficult than that. There will never be unanimity in Europe, and not even a majority that enables to ensure the French social model, and even less, generalize it. This model is not considered any longer for the unemployment it generates. But it is in the name of a “social Europe” that many left-wing voters have become pro-Europeans. And it is in the hope of rebuilding Europe that many of them decided to vote “no”. Removing such contradictions is a very serious duty for the left-wing.
Currently, going on with the ratification is already absurd: according to the international law, the countries, whatever their number, cannot impose a treaty on a country which has rejected it. After two negative votes, everything else is senseless. Making France vote again over the same text would be stupid and a renegotiation is hardly probable. Furthermore, if that renegotiation were to be made, nothing would guarantee that it may be advantageous for us. The Nice Treaty will continue to be applied, complemented by some provisions and probably enriched by a deeper collaboration. In the social respect, if Europeans achievements are to be preserved, preventing everything from collapsing, it is an urgency to especially put aside, for an indefinite time, the distressing and irresponsible rhetoric of the European integration. The issue of the United States of Europe must also be forgotten so as to adopt again the Federation of States-Nations. The European project must get rid of the pro-European dogma. As we have done from long ago, we should not go on to expect or fear everything from Europe.
The European Union must be endowed with an economic and project-oriented policy. In the social field, it is high time to reaffirm that the proper framework for social policy is still that of the State-Nation, if the important thing is to fulfill a general European harmonization around the most relevant issues and that the 25 adopt more aggressive postures -“U.S.-style - at the WTO.

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing told that when he sent the ECT to Silvio Berlusconi, the latter used it to swat a fly and said “at least this Constitution was useful for something!” Today, this story takes all its meaning. Jacques Chirac once told me that that text was more a bylaw than a constitution. Then, why was it called a “Constitution”?
What has been rejected in relation to that Constitution was the intention to “enshrine in the constitution”, in the name of a non-existing “European people”, a set of paralyzing rules that have created a mass unemployment in Europe, which the truly existing peoples refuse to accept. The only realistic attitude is to amend, in that text, what hinders a European-wide Keynesian takeoff. But both the right-wing and the Socialist Party consider that the Constitution ratification process goes on as it did before. Nowadays, the people and the gathered elites look at each other with distrust and in the core of this lack of understanding is the nation. The elites, for their own profit, want to deprive the people of their national sovereignty and do not consider their policy should change at all. The problem thus posed today is knowing how to interpret the fantastic proof of strength our people have just given amidst a political system the role of which is to suppress their will. What wasn’t possible in 2002, will then be possible in 2007?
The left-wing still has today the same conditions it had in 1969. it still doesn’t understand a single thing. Yesterday, it clang to the “third force”, today it clings to the “social-liberalism”. The left-wing has chosen to consider the refusal of the Constitution as a simple incident: no self-criticism of that direction created in 1998, consolidated on its social-liberal line. In 2002, the left-wing blamed its electoral failure on Chevènement, today blames it on Fabius. The search for a scapegoat allowed tightening the unity of the tribe. The left-wing takes no notice when it comes to inquiring about its responsibilities. Such was the mood of the National Penitentiary Council of the Socialist Party on June 4.
We must think about the left-wing and in so doing we must think about Europe. As Robin Cook said ‘we have to turn this into a protection against globalization’. The leftwing should be reorganized to catch up with the 2007 requirements. Out of the Socialist Party, going on its own, nothing will come. It is inconceivable that in 2007, a candidate will be presented that advocates the “yes” in case he wants to win back the popular electorate. To do this, the leftwing must break up with the conditioned though shortsighted response that has so often led it to oppose the country and Europe. It must be erected on the continuation of the democratic nations.
For the time being, it is necessary for another financial takeoff of the Euro-zone to take place. This topic should have been included in the agenda of the European Council on June 16-17. The Euro-group must be strengthened and the European Central Bank statutes revised. A “financial government” must be built. This Copernican revolution will permit the emergence of the European strategic star that we so much need in each and every sphere.

Following the French and Dutch rejection of the Constitution, Europe is undergoing a conceptual crisis due to the threatening financial situation existing both separately and collectively in Europe. The conservatives think that the only way out is by cutting out subsidies, opportunities and grant-in-aids, which for centuries have constituted the European notion of a common life in a mutual society. For them, Europe can be prosperous if it removes the market limitations and encourages competition. The socialists assert that the Anglo-American wild-market model, which only knows a winner, can only cause the rich to become much richer, thus creating a devastating model of social exploitation.
In my opinion, the current debates on the Constitution have to do, in fact, with the future of capitalism. An increasing number of Europeans is beginning to ask themselves which market suits them best: whether the liberal or the social. When the referendums were held in France and The Netherlands, people expressed their preferences, fears and hopes as to the financial aspect. That reminds me of those days - 20 years ago - when Mijail Gorbachov, wanted to save the Soviet image through a critical reevaluation of the communist experience. In my view, the situation has turned gloomy: while companies profits are on the increase everywhere in the world, the financial situation of 89 countries becomes worse than it used to be in 1990’s. Instead of narrowing the gap between wealthy countries and poor countries, capitalism, on the contrary, widens it. The accrued assets of the 356 richest families are worth the annual income of 46% of the world population. The three wealthiest individuals in the world - Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and the Wall-Mart Waltons - own more, put together, than the annual income of the 940 million poorest people in the planet. Capitalist ideologists wanted to insert them in the global village, but a third of humanity still lacks electricity and is financially isolated. The biosphere is in danger, terrorism threatens the world, corruption prevails.
Neo-conservatives had attacked the centralization of power on top of the huge bureaucratic mountain of the communist State, but they replaced it with a concentration of power equally centralized on top of the 500 global financial companies that rule the world. Adam Smith’s invisible hand does not allow everyone to enjoy the results of growth but, on the contrary, only the winner, who takes it all. The U.S. - the purest exponent of capitalism all over the world - is also the country, among industrial nations, to generate more poverty. One out of 4 school students live in the threshold of poverty and 20% of the U.S. adult manpower is behind bars, which represents 25% of all the prisoners in the world. The strengths of capitalism are also its weaknesses and we must clearly know the difference. Contriving a market only to serve particular interests is almost pathologic. They have to be always cutting down production costs, maximizing the revenues and increasing the share values. In order to survive, we need an Aristotelian balance that encourages the venture spirit of the market but also that slows down its tendency to concentrate power on top of the pyramid. It’s getting more and more evident, which is a sarcasm of history, that we should not oppose capitalism to socialism, but see them as two complementary “visible hands” that will create a balance between the market interests and the collective responsibility sentiment. The current debates taking place in Europe may polarize opinions to hazardous extremes, with the raw force of the market opposing the bureaucratic dictates of the State providence. Neither one approach should destroy the contents of the other. Each one of us embodies these two frames of mind. We want to benefit the particular interests being fully aware of our responsibility towards the citizens. A socially reformed market economy that respects these two components of man would be a model and an example for the rest of the world.