The European Constitution: How to proceed if France or the Netherlands votes “No”

This policy paper for the Istituto Affari Internazionali by Gian Luigi Tosato and Ettore Greco questions what would happen if France and the Netherlands voted “no” in the coming referendums on the Constitutional Treaty of the EU and examines the most effective solution for dealing with a crisis that would be both serious and complex.

At the heart of the debate over the French and Dutch referendums on the European Constitution is one question: If a no vote prevails, what approach should other member states adopt towards the ratification process? Should they stop it or continue?

This question is to some extent new, even though a ratification crisis has always loomed as a possibility. In fact, in order to enter into force, the Constitutional Treaty has to be ratified by all member states. In a 25-member union, the risk of some member states failing to ratify is high, even in statistical terms. Hence the question as to what should be done in that event has always been on the table and the authors of the paper have participated in the debate. 

The point of view expressed in this paper is that, should France or other countries reject the treaty, the ratification process must continue as planned. This is a requirement clearly stated in Declaration no. 30 annexed to the Treaty. It also satisfies a basic condition of democracy, which is that each member state can make its voice heard on a par with every other. At the same time, it makes it possible to verify the entire range of options of European citizens and work out the most suitable solutions on that basis. Not very convincing is the idea that the ratification process should be halted to avoid a negative chain reaction. Even less convincing is the idea that a new phase of renegotiation could be immediately taken up with success. It is unlikely that such an operation would be feasible, especially if the promoter were a country that had rejected the treaty. Basically, suspending ratification would worsen the crisis and not contribute to solving it. 

The ratification process should continue, even in the event of a possible French, Dutch or other “no”. But a parallel political and diplomatic process should be started up promptly to work out possible solutions by the October 2006 deadline. In the year that lies ahead, the countries that have rejected the treaty should commit themselves to fostering a broad national debate on the proposals to put forward at the European level. On their part, the European institutions and other member states should declare their willingness to engage in a constructive dialogue to define a strategy to solve the crisis, while declining renegotiation of the Treaty. The European Council could also promote initiatives, such as a declaration on the principles of the social market economy, aimed at responding to some of the concerns of those who voted “no” without necessarily being contrary to European integration. 

To read the IAI paper in full, please click here.