JOHN D. MCHUGH / AFP-Getty Images NEE! No camp supporters celebrate in Amsterdam

	SPECIAL REPORT

Posted Sunday, June 5, 2005; 11.57 BST
But those who claimed victory in France had a very different agenda. Emmanuelli saw the result as a revolt by people "not willing to accord their destiny to the market alone," and would like the E.U. to intervene with greater vigor in the economy. "We need a Marshall Plan to construct prosperity in Eastern Europe," said Emmanuelli, arguing that hiking wages in the east would protect jobs in France and allow French-style worker protection to take hold across the Union. As for Balkenende's desire to ease up on integration, Emmanuelli's party colleague Arnaud Montebourg had other ideas. "We need an inner circle of nations accustomed to interacting closely with one another," he said. "The nations that want to integrate more, faster and upward toward a more socially minded system, not downward to merely unrestrained markets and trade."

Where did this mess come from? In the eyes of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the president of the convention that hammered out the first draft of the constitution, the European document was supposed to make the E.U. better able to assert its values in the world; values such as "respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality ... pluralism, nondiscrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity, equality of the sexes."

And some bought it. Elderly voters, perhaps with sharper memories of the bitter and bloody divisions that a united Europe was meant to heal, supported the constitution. So did the more affluent and better educated. All 20 arrondissements of Paris backed the constitution. But outside the "Europe of the Rotary Club," as the newspaper of Italy's Euro-skeptic Northern League put it, the constitution was scorned. French manual laborers voted no at a rate of 79%, polls indicated, and low-paid employees at 67%. Exit polls in both France and the Netherlands showed that it was the baby boomers, aged from 35 to around 65, who most strongly opposed the constitution. So did the young, despite being weaned on the ideal of European integration. In the Netherlands, 55% of voters between 18 and 24 voted against the constitution, as did 56% of their French counterparts.

Why the rejection? Part of the explanation lies in a grassroots alienation from the degree of integration championed by Brussels and national governments. "People aren't anti-European, but they think the project has gone too far," says former French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine. He added that the "brutal and massive" enlargement that added 10 countries, most from Central and Eastern Europe, last year, was presented as if it was a moral obligation — but when belatedly given a chance to endorse it, voters decided that it wasn't such a great deal. "We have to abandon the idea that European integration is like a bicycle that will fall over unless it keeps moving forward," says Védrine. "People want to know where the journey ends."

Trouble is, if anyone knows that destination, they aren't telling. In Brussels, there is still a reluctance to admit the obvious: that the constitution is dead. In Washington, Luxembourg's Foreign Affairs Minister Jean Asselborn said that by means of a July 10 referendum in his tiny country, "We will reverse the situation, then we will have the next referendums in autumn and you will see that the cause is not yet lost." Grant of the Centre for European Reform says that's a fantasy: "We've got the only treaties we're going to have for the next decade." And the same goes for E.U. membership, too. Forget that grand scheme to extend the benefits of the Union to the Balkans and the old Soviet borderlands. "Romania and Bulgaria will squeak through, but too bad for Ukraine," says Grant. "Turkey may start negotiations this fall, but they'll never finish."

Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next

Dutch Treat [May 30, 2005] The no camp gains ground in the Netherlands The French Exception [May 30, 2005] As the referendum looms, the French talk a lot about the constitution but not enough about themselves Closer Union Or Superstate? [Jun. 28, 2004] After years of wrangling, E.U. leaders agree on a new constitution. eu'ro'pho'bia [Jun. 9, 2003] A strong fear that giving more power to the E.U. spells doom Room for God? [Jun. 9, 2003] Where's religion's place in the new constitution? Will Britons Have a Say? [Jun. 02, 2003] Europe's new constitution is giving Tony Blair a headache Paperwork [Jun. 23, 2003] Will a new constitution help make the E.U. matter? Valéry Giscard D'Estaing [Jun. 23, 2003] 'To Build a Society, You Need A Sense of Belonging' Romano Prodi [Jun. 23, 2003] 'We Will Never Have a Single European Nation' Is Anybody Listening? [Jun. 7, 2004] How one M.E.P. is trying to convince a wary and apathetic public that the E.U.'s legislature matters Search all issues of TIME Magazine Indicates premium content