In France we rejected because the Giscard constitution was a step backward for us. Too much emphasis on neo-liberal, free market reforms in the countries where Capital wanted those reforms to make more money for shareholders and squeeze the rest of our wages, and almost zero emphasis on social reforms in countries that chronically engage in social dumping and thereby undermine solidarity mechanisms in those countries which actually take them seriously. This is why on the left, we voted overwhelmingly against, while on the "respectable" right (UMP, not FN) they voted overwhelmingly for it.
In the Netherlands, of course, voters rejected it because the rest of us stepping backwards is in their immediate national advantage, as Nanne observes here re: their attitudes on trade. (In Ireland, I'm not sure ultimately what the problem is, but I'd prefer not to get into that here.)
Totally different rejections, in terms of political content of the rejection.
Now, and again this is a political statement of preference of mine, but it is precisely because of the content of the rejection in France which makes it credible. Not that it was France that rejected it, but why France rejected it.
Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
The usual reponses to the no in NL were that it reduced NL power in the union, followed by expression of dissatisfaction in the government coalition of the time. And, the "respectable" left parties there were for it, though shortly thereafter, one of the properly left parties, which had been against on grounds similar to those of us in France, had some serious electoral successes, so maybe there's hope after all.
In France, the fact it reduced actually exisiting rights and protections, played a predominant role in the referendum defeat. The PS was split in two on the wubject, most of the PS votes voted against, and all other parties on the left were against. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
As for attitudes, in my memory the right-wing side of the Dutch 'no' was due to a backlash against the euro, which was blamed for inflation and there were fears about the membership of the southern states, and there was a backlash against the opening of negotiations with Turkey.
Neoliberalism had little to do with it.
But I think it is outstanding that there is again a viable left party in NL. This is good news for all of us. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
The SP indeed became a larger party only after the referendum. But its base had already expanded at that time.
To cherry pick on my side a bit, here's a short quote from this evaluation (pdf) of the Dutch referendum:
Looking at results per municipality, it shows that a majority voted no in 9 out of 10 municipalities. The municipalities which voted yes in majority are the richest municipalities of the country: Rozendaal (Gld.), Laren, Bloemendaal, Heemstede, Wassenaar, and the rich communities in Eindhoven. Municipalities which had a high percentage of no-voters were the fiercely Protestant localities, the leftwing Socialist localities and those that also voted in high numbers for Pim Fortuyn (`protest localities').
A masterpiece of Jesuitical sophistry! The reasons for any no vote are always arguable and will change depending on who you talk to. The hard left in Ireland also voted against Lisbon because it appeared to them to endorse the neo-liberal policies of global capitalism. The hard right in both France and Ireland voted against Lisbon because of their social conservatism and Nationalist proclivities.
Probably the biggest block of NO voters in Ireland voted NO because the Treaty had been rendered deliberately unintelligible by elite conspiracy to make it appear different from the Constitution. This was a contemptuous way to treat any electorate and I have a lot of sympathy for that particular argument. It was a "solution" created to solve a French problem (NO to Constitution) and ended up causing an even bigger problem for a more democratically inclined Irish polity. Hopefully no European electorate will be treated with similar contempt again.
But at the end of the day what matters is not the multitude of reasons why people voted NO: Whether a left-winger approves of a left wing rejection of neo-liberalism, or a right-winger approves of a right-wing rejection of a further erosion of national Sovereignty is neither here nor there - neither type of vote is more "credible" or more "creditable" than the other. Their effect is precisely the same - to prevent the further development of a more European polity - whatever way you try to dress it up. notes from no w here
I agree on that, and had I been able to vote in Spain (I was moving and changing voter registration so I missed it) I would probably have voted no on those grounds alone. Not that it would have made a difference in the result (a "safe" no vote) but at least it would have brought the participation rate closer to 50% :-) Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
On the Irish voters being obligated here to vote on a crappy (and here I don't disagree on the substance, it's the form I find objectionable) treaty revision, I don't think anyone in the EU forces Ireland to hold referenda. My understanding is, unlike every other EU member state, Ireland is constitutionally obligated to hold such referenda for modifications to the constitution large and small.
Here in France, I think Chirac was obligated by popular demand to put it to a refendendum, like Mitterand did with Maastricht. But he was not constitutionally obligated to do so. It was a political decision. I think the same goes for Netherlands too.
But Ireland is a special case. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
