An ex-Constitution

A quick word, at least, on the rejection of the proposed EU Constitution by the French and Dutch electorates, before I disappear for a week.

I think there was, and remains, a good case for the draft Constitution, and believe European Governments will, and ought, to come back to the issue in due course. Daniel Finkelstein, in The Times, disagrees with this view, despite (a point that weighs heavily with me, and is more acute in continental Europe than the UK) the large representation within the 'No' camp of political cranks and extremists. Of these people, he argues:

Many people behind the no camp were thoroughly objectionable, but by derailing the train as it chugged towards a federal Europe they have done us a favour, whatever their motivation.

The policies they are urging France to pursue would be a disaster for France, as would quickly become apparent should they ever be able to implement them. Yet they are correct to argue that they should retain the ability to determine France’s policy. For only if they retain their right to be wrong can anybody else have the right to be right.

To my mind, the same argument could be deployed in support of the anti-globalisers campaigning for the abolition of the World Trade Organisation, CND calling for the abolition of Nato, and in the case of any organisation founded on international treaty that binds (as is the point of treaties) signatories to a code of rules. These would be bad outcomes. Such institutions do not curtail democracy, but rather establish a framework of rules in preference to discretionary intervention. Rules, which generate predictable outcomes, have beneficial consequences in, for example, realising the economic benefits of comparative advantage or in assuring collective security against potential aggressors, but they also serve essential liberal values (removing discrimination on grounds of national origin; coming to the defence of weaker states that share our values). The French Front National and Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire were being consistent in opposing the draft Constitution. Those who subscribe to the values of internationalism and the open society ought at least to be open-minded on the principles behind the terminally-damaged draft Constitution.