Editorial: Europe will survive French 'no'

It is not totally unusual for national referendums to throw a spanner in the works of the European Union. In 1992, the Danes vented their spleen and in 2001 the Irish followed suit. Now it is the turn of the French, who have decisively rejected a proposed European constitution. This was the gravest "no" vote yet, a rebuff from the nation that, alongside Germany, has driven the EU from its first tentative steps as a post-World War II economic alliance. Yet this vote was also more about assorted French anxieties than the process of European integration.

It was always ambitious to expect all 25 members to ratify the constitution in a first round, especially when some had chosen to put the issue to the public rather than have it ratified by Parliament. President Jacques Chirac, for one, will now be ruing the staking of his political standing on a "yes" vote.

As can happen in referendums, most of the issues accorded prominence in France were tangential to the question on the voting slip. The constitution, which would provide a framework for streamlined decision-making after the EU's enlargement to include 10 central and eastern European countries, was a bit player. This became in many ways a vote on Mr Chirac's stewardship of an economy stricken by 10 per cent unemployment. Other unrelated factors also came into play, including xenophobia, globalisation and fears of imported cheap labour, especially if Turkey were to join the union.

The details of the voting are instructive. Voters over 50 tended to be pro-constitution, as befitted their familiarity with a warring Europe. For them the final vestiges of centuries of conquest and competing alliances are not the stuff of ancient history. Young voters, in contrast, tended to say "no". Theirs was a vote influenced by anti-free market and anti-globalisation sentiment. It was also a vote that ignored the remarkable successes of the European Union, culminating most recently in a single currency (the euro) and last year's addition of an array of mostly former communist states.

What the vote also revealed was a split France. The big cities, prosperous and outward-looking, said an emphatic "yes", while depressed working-class suburbs and small towns, mindful of job losses, voted "no". Farmers were also opposed; a more decisive EU could threaten subsidies.

In theory this rejection kills off the constitution. Each member state must formally endorse it. But the EU, by necessity, is all about compromise. Ways were found to placate and reassure the Danes and the Irish, and their noes became votes of approvals at the second attempt. So, after what Mr Chirac termed a "period of reflection", ways will be found around this setback.

It should not be forgotten that nine countries, making up half the EU's population and including Germany, have ratified the charter. And that endorsement by three-quarters of members allows for a rethink of the way forward. Mr Chirac told French voters that renegotiation of the constitution was impossible. But that was politicking. EU leaders will now turn to salvaging part of it in a short treaty, perhaps one that can be ratified without recourse to referendums.

They have little choice. The present rules were designed for a much smaller union and the weighting granted smaller states is now a recipe for paralysis. Additionally, the constitution implants notions that are essential if the EU is to progress, the likes, for example, of the creation of a European president and foreign minister to increase the profile of a group eager to be seen in the same light as the United States and China.

European politicians and the Brussels bureaucracy will ensure that this process continues. The French vote will have dented their pride and there will be a period of introspection. But this was not, in the final analysis, a "no" to Europe. Nor does it signal a halt to what remains an extraordinary success story.