The results of a first experiment often turn out to be crucial for the future success of a research project. I believe this will also be the case with this referendum. So that’s another reason to hope for a Yes vote in the Netherlands…

Mark

Interesting point, on voting ‘no’ as a negotiation tactic. I could argue that, as far as political institutions are concerned, they probably realise that there is very little willingness to make additional concessions to France among the other 24 countries - especially as many (the Brits, for instance) feel they have made more concessions to France already than they are able to justify to their voters. Which is why I believe any “concession” would be unsubstantial - which also, from a national interest point of view, makes it not worth the hassle.

Politicians, on the other hand (as opposed to state institutions), could be motivated by other things (like popularity ratings) that would make it worth the hassle fighting for an symbolic concession. This is especially true as, sadly, the 2007 presidential elections seem to have been a more important factor in the political debate than the future of Europe (or France, for that matter). However, in order to obtain a concession on the Constitution you have to be in government already, so this path is only open to politicians of the right. Nicolas Sarkozy, Chirac’s main rival candidate for the presidential elections and a likely new Prime Minister, however, is an economic liberal and reformist, so I do not see what kind of concession he would be able to boost his popularity with (and he does not seem to need to either, surprisingly enough). But Dominique de Villepin, another likely Prime Minister, is more of a lefty, so it could work for him (although he has campaigned more vigorously for a ‘yes’ than Sarkozy, so where does that leave him?).

This is of course not how most ordinary voters will reason. I think many of them, especially on the left, will not even vote ‘no’ with “the national interest” in mind, but because they genuinely believe that their view of a “more social” Europe would make it a better place for everyone. And, because at the same time, voting ‘no’ allows them to give a bloody nose to the ruling party, which, in their eyes, is not pursuing such policies. According to opinion polls, 52% of voters apparently believe that the Constitution can be renegotiated - this corresponds nicely with the percentage of people intending to vote ‘no’. This also despite the fact that 57% believes the Constitution will make Europe stronger in the world and 58% that it will improve the functioning of the EU institutions. So that seems to confirm your idea.

A final word on referenda: Indeed, this whole thing shows that it would have been a good idea to hold all those national referenda on the same day, or at least within, say, the same week. The problem was, of course, that 25 countries have 25 different sets of constitutional rules which you cannot overrule from a supranational level. And the other problem was that not having a referendum was politically impossible in most of the countries holding one, including those doing so on a “voluntary” basis, like the Netherlands. They simply would not have got away with it. And as far as the Netherlands are concerned, I must say that whatever the outcome, the referendum has led to a wide debate on the EU which, even if it was not very sophisticated, was long overdue.

This is a well-known problem with federal constitutions when they have to be adopted for the first time, which always requires unanimity of the constituent parts: they either come about in an undemocratic way (through parliaments and governments voting on a national basis, but without involving the population directly), or a violent one (civil war in the USA and Switzerland). Of course, one of the first things abolished by such constitutions is the unanimity requirement for future revisions. Sadly, the EU Constitution does not do so…

Just one negative implicit conclusion. The way you describe it, it seems like the French can only win by voting No, assuming that they reason mainly based on national interests. Since the worst that can happen to them is a second referendum, in which they can still vote Yes. And this worst case scenario doesn’t even have any disadvantages for them; it will not even delay the process, since there’s another year to go before e.g. the Brits and/or Czechs will have held their referenda. More likely than this worst case (for them) scenario is that the treaty will be renegotiated (either by changing the text or by adding documents) in their favor. So why would they vote Yes?

Would you vote Yes if you where an influential country in the EU and you knew that there is, say, a 50% chance that you will manage to include your preferred Senate in the treaty, provided that you’re voting No?

Since this is a referendum on a treaty, a Yes doesn’t mean that the constitution succeeds. It’s more like, we step aside and let the remaining others decide. A little simplified I know, but still. A No means, we’ll wait until the others have decided and then react accordingly. From a negotiation point of view, the second is a lot smarter. Ergo, the choice for national referenda on this treaty was a wrong one.

Mark
Who loves direct democracy, but only if it is effective.