Student Publications
University of Houston
151C Communications Bldg
Houston, TX 77204-4015
713.743.5350

©1991-2007
Student Publications,
All rights reserved.

Last modified:

Contact:
ktruitt@uh.edu

Opinion

Economics a deal breaker in the EU

Giugi Carminati
Opinion Columnist

France and the Netherlands rejecting the European Constitution is not, as many have stated, a blow to the solidity or the unity of the European Union; it is not even a setback. The United States Constitution was adopted by nine of its thirteen member states in 1789. The significance of this document and the powers it confers on states and the Federal government has long been a source of debate. In 2005 Europe is undergoing the same process. The difference is that it does not require a mere majority, the European Constitution demands unanimity. Furthermore, the EU consists of 25 members who have varied backgrounds, cultures and historical positions. 

Putting things in perspective is very useful in wading through the bleak "analyses" given regarding the vote. Constitutions are tricky business. The United States, which has a remarkable constitution, also had its fair share of constitutional crises. The European Union is simply swimming through a difficult sea. Unanimity is difficult to achieve and leaves little space for compromise. It is one of the strengths of the European system, and some might argue that it is also the reason for its slow and intermittent advancement.

Few members of the American public have taken the time to look over the tremendous document that the European Constitution represents. The French version of the document is 252 pages long and deals in large part with economic regulations. It seems that the French and Dutch voted against ratification for a variety of reasons. One of these was that the Constitution is considered too economically liberal and not socially responsible enough. Europe is made up of largely social democratic countries that have, more so than the United States, safety nets for their citizens. From access to health care, public education from kindergarten to university to decent pension plans and welfare, Europe (and this is an oversimplification) has governments that provide more for their citizens. For Europe to maintain its standard of living, it must refuse to adopt a completely liberal economic system that will fundamentally alter the ‘personality' of its member countries.

The rejection of a Constitution that was taking the EU down a different path than desired by its people is not a setback for the Union. It is an advancement, proof that the voice of the people has the power to alter the course of history. Previous treaties still exist and regulate the functioning of the Union, so nothing has really been lost. Anyone commenting on the events taking place in Europe needs to keep in mind that this is not a simple treaty; it is a constitution. For the United States, it took a secret convention, an act of treason toward the Articles of Confederation government and vicious political battles to ensure ratification that would pass a 9/13 majority, and look how far we have come.

It is far more interesting and important to maintain an open, intelligent and inquisitive mind than to accept headlines of failure. President Chirac definitely took a personal blow since the "no" vote was also a "no" vote for his government. But his government is not the European Constitution, nor is disapproval of his presidency a message of disapproval for the European Union. There are numerous factors and subtleties at play that make for complicated headlines and are therefore ignored (most of the time). Let us keep in mind that the EU is one of the biggest feats to be attempted this century.

Carminati, an opinion columnist for The Daily Cougar, 
can be reached via giugi.carminati@gmail.com.