Lessons in Politicking

At last, the real reason why the French voted against the EU constitution:

A crucial turning point for the fate of the constitution in France came last March, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing said, when he phoned Mr. Chirac to warn him not to send the entire three-part, 448-article document to every French voter. The third and longest part consisted only of complicated treaties that have already been in force for years.

He said Mr. Chirac refused, citing legal reasons. "I said, 'Don't do it, don't do it,' " Mr. Giscard d'Estaing said. "It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text."

Pardon? While some might interpret M. d'Estaing's remark as an expression of contempt for the average citizen, I think the key word here is "anyone." The authors of the EU constitution undoubtedly created something so sublime that even they had to avert their eyes in deference to its brilliance. Who indeed could understand the full text?

Meanwhile, Chirac deserves bonus points for sending a three-volume edition of the charter to every voter. Maybe he could have driven down the "oui" vote even more by assigning book reports. (Story here; link via Crooked Timber.)

A year ago in Reason, Michael Young had premonitions about the difficulties of European unification.

Comments

[Todd Fletcher]

Why on earth would a constitution have treaties included? It seems the authors didn't really get the idea of a constitution to begin with.

[le crime pensent]

Vive l'imprim? publicitaire!

[crimethink]

Here's hoping the Bush administration sends a copy of the Patriot Act to every voter...

[thoreau]

Here's hoping the Bush administration sends a copy of the Patriot Act to every voter...

You're forgetting something:

Rule Number One of the Patriot Act: We don't talk about the Patriot Act!

[Not David]

It sounds like some things I was supposed to have read in graduate school.

[drew]

Wish we would do this with all our bills. Heh even sending a copy of the constitution to everyone would be a good start.

Joe wakes up looks in his mailbox
"hmm whats this, ah some weird piece of paper talking about individual rights, and limited federal government, wonder what kind of looney pro terrorist group is sending this stuff around?"

[Evan McElravy]

I read an article in the Financial Times last week on the aftermath of the French and Dutch votes that included an interesting bit of candidness from some of the poobahs in charge. One of them confessed that the big mistake was in billing the thing as a "Constitution" in the first place, when in fact all it really was was an omnibus of previous treaties on the functioning of the Union along with some (purported; I have my doubts) streamlining and democratic improvements. "Constitution" sounded grandiose and its framers thought that would result in a lot of pro-EU feeling and emotion of new beginnings, etc. But of course what happened was people heard "Constitution" and thought what most people would think, that they were getting a streamlined little document establishing a new political entity, and they either freaked at the idea of the new political entity or the bloated nature of what was really just another administrative treaty along the lines of Maastricht, Schengen, etc. Most of what was "vetoed" has been in effect for years already in piecemeal form and is still in effect now. Hubris as usua, and a sign that the EU in its current form has gone about as far as it can go without a debate on first principles.

[Steven Crane]

Drew,

I realize that kicking joe around is one of the favorite pastimes here, but come on. Why drag him into something he's not yet involved in?

[raymond]

The Economist proposed a constitution a while back.

Too anglo-saxon, no doubt.

[R C Dean]

It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text.

That's a design feature, carefully crafted by the EUrocrats, not a bug. If the EU constitution (I will not dignify it with an initial capital) is a semantic empty vessel, jammed wall to wall with ambiguities and vacuities, then it meants whatever our masters say it means, or whatever they want it to mean today.

[joe]

"Why on earth would a constitution have treaties included? It seems the authors didn't really get the idea of a constitution to begin with."

Yeah. What he said.

[drf]

"Too anglo-saxon, no doubt."

lol.

it's like the euro debate during the ramp up to Amsterdam and Nice: "the EU is too Liberal" "we need to be in the EU to balance out the French" "we need the EU to have our small country's voice heard" "we need the EU to counterbalance the US" "we need the EU to guarantee social justice" "we need the EU to guarantee ecological justice"...

no wonder the document was so long 🙂

this is also an interesting contrast to the 1986 Single Europe Act, which paved the way for the 1992 Maastricht treaty. That was rammed through in denmark in a referendum that basically was a choice between "vote yes, or we'll join norway". it makes some of the more shameful congressional riders seem honorable.

[Fatty McFatfat]

Giscard sounds like he's talking about the Necronomicon, not a constitution. "No, do not enter there - the knowledge is too terrible! It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text!"

[Syd]

I know if someone sent me a 448-page constitution I'd vote against it too.

[David T]

My rule for *any* Constitution: it should be short enough to memorize. Now this may not seem like much of a limitation--some pious Muslims have memorized the entire Koran--but I mean something like "something the average person could memorize in a reasonable length of time, if he had to."

[Brevity Might Be the Soul of L]

A 448-page constitution. Yep, they got it all wrong. Now, a 4.48-page constitution? That's just about right. As long as several of the sentences on those 4.48 pages begin with the phrase "The government shall not".