The No vote from the left - a call for change, writes Brendan Young.
It will surprise many supporters of the EU Constitution that one in 10 French people have read the EU Constitution - cover to cover! I would be surprised if one in 10 of the Irish politicians who are calling for a Yes have done that. And books on this contradictory document have been in the top 10 bestseller list in France since Christmas.
The ordinary people of France and The Netherlands found out what is in the EU Constitution and voted No. In doing so they defied the great and the good of Europe, the majority coverage given to the "yes" side in the mass media, and the calls of their traditional leadership.
The No vote - especially in France - was achieved in large part by grassroots campaigning and debate. Almost 1,000 'unity committees', calling for a "No from the Left", had been set up across France since last autumn. These were based on a left-wing critique of the Constitution - which highlighted the primacy of the market, of unrestricted competition, and the threat of privatisation of public services contained in the Constitution. The No campaign was led on the ground by these Committees - based upon public sector unions and two large union federations, the alter-globalisation movement Attac, the French Communist Party, the far-left League Communiste Revolutionaire, the left of the Socialist Party, and left-wing Greens. They exposed the neo-liberalism of the Constitution, and campaigned instead for social and environmental priorities.
The French "non" was not just a dig at Chirac because of dissatisfaction with his government. The French vote was a conscious rejection of a Constitution that would enshrine for generations the Thatcherite policies being imposed across Europe by Chirac, Blair, Ahern et al, in conjunction with the European Commission. Market-liberalisers like Blair and Berlusconi - and liberalising EU leaders like Barroso, Mandelson and McCreevy - support this document. Likewise Sarkhozy, leader of the French right-wing UMP party, who gave the game away when he said "the Europe we want will induce change in France". By this he means an end to the 35- hour week, cuts in social spending to allow employers' tax cuts, and legal changes so that people can be fired more easily - what Blair calls "labour-market flexibility". All this in the name of being more competitive.
The leaderships of the French Socialist Party, of the Greens, the Party of European Socialists and of part of the trade union movement have bought into this "competitiveness" framework. Their protests that the Constitution would protect the "social model" lack credibility in the face of the drive to reduce wages and social benefits and privatise public services by supporters of the Constitution in governments across Europe. And when it came to the vote, the majority of French workers and young people didn't believe the traditional leaders of the left.
Attempts to mask the politics of the "non" - like saying that the "non" emerged from a de facto left-right alliance - are dismissed by French participants.
Global justice activist and French resident Susan George is scathing of such a suggestion: "Only someone writing for foreign consumption could say such a thing. Even the overwhelmingly pro-Yes media in France would not try to get away with that". An analysis of the French vote reveals that it was a vote from the left.
Overall, 67 per cent of supporters of parties of the left voted "no". Some 59 per cent of Socialist Party supporters, 64 per cent of Green supporters, 61 per cent of nonaligned voters and almost all far-left supporters said "no". "Yes" majorities came only from supporters of parties of the right and from the over 65s. Nearly 80 per cent of manual workers voted No, as did the majority of white collar workers and the unemployed. Yes votes came mainly from professionals and self-employed. The far right, on the basis of recent election results, claim between 15 and 18 per cent of the total vote. So about 40 per cent of the total vote, meaning over 70 per cent of the "non", was from the left. Surveys indicate that people voted No because of concerns about unemployment, social provision, and because the Constitution was too liberal.
Calls to continue ratification are pressure for Nice II type re-votes in France and The Netherlands, which should be opposed. Such calls also imply that there must be continuity with the current neo-liberal politics of the EU and the Constitution. This is reinforced by Blair's assertion that there must be no let up with "reform" - liberalisation and globalisation of the EU economy.
The resounding "no" votes in France and The Netherlands are however, a call for a change of direction. Competition - between those in work and the unemployed, and between east and western European countries - is a race to the bottom where ordinary people lose out.
The market does not provide services that are available to all - which is why privatisation of public services is regressive.
The "non" movement in France has given a lead for a different direction for Europe, where social and environmental concerns take priority. Governments across Europe, the social-democratic parties, the Greens and trade union leaders would do well to take note.
Brendan Young is a member of the Campaign Against the EU Constitution.