The Dutch Vote -- A Tulip Revolution?

I suppose I should blog a bit about the recent rejection of the EU Constitution by the French and Dutch electorates. There's been so much commentary that there's not much, if anything, left to say. Still, I should talk a bit about how it breaks down to me.

The general contours of discussion are pretty simple. Opponents of the EU superstate are rejoicing and are quick to declare the entire process dead in the water. A good example is Richard Whitman, an expert at the British Royal Institute of International affairs commenting in the Times, who stated:

"To have such a very, very large [Dutch] turnout after the French vote but
also to have such an overwhelming 'no' is really crushing for the constitutional
treaty. I think there's absoluely no way this document in its current form can
go forward."

Read it here.Some precincts of the blogosphere are less restrained. Lexington Green, over at Chicago Boyz writes:

Oh man, this is so great: ...bully for them for rejecting the 66,000 word abomination. ...I think I am going to go out and buy some Dutch beer this weekend....It just occurred to me that this is one more instance of the people of a country rising up and peacefully defying their unelected masters. So, the Tulip Revolution belongs in the same category as the Orange Revolution, the Rose Revolution, etc. Not sure what to call what happened in France a few days ago ... . Has Bush's policy of spreading democracy started a global wave of democratization so big it is now even sloshing into Europe?

Read it here.

Jonah Goldberg over at NRO's Corner writes:

Now is the time for unreasonable giddiness, schadenfreude, and rank geopolitical opportunism. Maybe not items one and two, if we're talking about what the offcial US response should be, but for the rest of us, I can't see how this is anything but fantastic news.

Read it here.

Actually, I think that Lexington Green makes a pretty good point, one I'll come back to later.But for now, I'll confine myself to the other side of the discussion -- the one, advanced by Euro-elites that the ratification process will go forward regardless of who votes against it.

After the French referendum we were told by our "betters" in the international press that this was not really a vote against the US Constitution. It was actually a vote against Jacques Chirac and his inept regime. Or, alternatively, the media picked up and amplified the French left's argument that it was a vote against "globalization" and "Anglo-Saxon" economic liberalism, which the constitution supposedly would enshrine.

But neither of these arguments pertain to the Dutch. Chirac doesn't govern there and they already have a liberal trade regime. So, we are fed alternative dismissive explanations. "It's just anti-Muslim bigotry" we are told. Or, the Dutch are simply afraid that their free-wheeling lifestyles will be cramped under the EU regime. As AP put it:

Dutch liberals feared the country would lose its independence over such socially liberal policies as euthanasia and Marijuana. Conservatives fretted about immigration policies being decided at EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

Read it here.

Of course, these arguments imply that there is nothing wrong with the basic concept, or form for that matter, of the EU Constitution -- simply a few adjustments that have to be made. They will have to write in a provision protecting pot cafes, and promise never to allow Turkey, with its teeming hordes of Muslim workers, to enter the union, and to implement socialist economic policies. There! That'll take care of that.

They'll have an opportunity to do so soon. The EU leaders will be meeting in Brussels on June 16-17 where they will enter into a "period of reflection" urged on them by Tony Blair. But the tenor of their "reflections" is already apparent.

Mr. Chirac has made clear he blames the No result on the brand of
[Anglo-Saxon] economic reform which Gordon, the [British] Chancellor, has
prescribed for Europe with his calls for it to open its markets.

Read it here.

We are also informed:

The votes could cast doubt on the EU's plans to expand further. Romania and Bulgaria are likely to join in 2007 as their accession treaties have already been signed but membership bids by Turkey, Ukraine and Balkan hopefuls might be disrupted.

Read it here.

So that's the take. Keep Turkey and other East European countries out of the union. That will keep workers happy, and reject economic liberalism. No hay problema! A little tinkering and the constitution will sail on through.

Or will it?

I tend to agree with Anatole Kaletsky, who wrote in the Times yesterday:

Whatever you think of European integration, there is something inspiring about 20 million pple who, having been told what to do by their most respected politicians, and after listening attentively, then do the exact opposite.

He has a point. The promises made by Euro-elites in support of the new constitution have been outrageous. Kaletsky notes:

Europe is more dependent on foreign trade, investment and capital flows than America. Europe's businesses and banks are more vulnerable than America's to currency movements and global capital flows. There is no alternative to the capitalist system of economic management which could secure the survuval of Europe's laboour-intensive industries against Chinese competition or make its state pensions, welfare benefits and short working hours affordable in an era when pensioner numbers are soaring, while working populations are in decline.

This means that the EU Constitution is not ever going to be a cure for these cultural and structural deficits, nor will it make Europe as economically prosperous as America.

The idea that closer political integration could somehow turn these self-indulgent dreams into a new European "economic model" has been the dirty little secret of the EU project. Of course the citizens of Europe would like ever-rising incomes and ever more job security, in exchange for doing less and less work and retiring earlier and earlier -- and they might be tempted to vote for a constitution which guaranteed these fantasies as fundamental human rights. On closer inspection, however, the citizens have begun to realize that their politicians have been selling Europe on a false prospectus.

Read it here.

This, of course, is true, but even so is not an adequate explanation for the “Nee” vote. One can hardly expect that most citizens were closely analyzing competing economic models. What came across in interview after interview with ordinary voters in TV reports was that they were “fed up” with insensitive governments, fed up with a lack of democracy, and fed up with being bossed around. Time and again they pointed out that the EU Constitution was undemocratic. And this brings us back to Lexington Green’s point.

We are living in an age of democratic revolution. In Georgia, in Ukraine, in Lebanon, and all around the world demands for citizen participation in government decision-making are being heard. The EU Constitution, which everyone agrees is profoundly undemocratic, runs counter to this powerful current. A few years ago it might have passed with little comment. But today, in the welter of democratic reform, it doesn’t stand a chance. Maybe, just maybe, what went on in the Netherlands this week was a “Tulip Revolution.”