Torn to shreds
But what implications does this have for Poland's economy and it's eurozone aspirations - and is a Polish vote on the EU Constitution an exercise in futility?
These are dark days in Brussels and Europe. The EU has been left reeling after two knockout blows from the French and the Dutch crippled its Constitution. While some within the Union say it is little more than a bump on the road to progress, critics have gloatingly called time on a trading bloc that has largely failed to force march its patchwork economic army from stumbling growth into soaring success.
The demise of the EU Constitution has called into question the very notion of the EU, with its much-vaunted policy document rejected by the populace of one of its founding members. Many difficult questions are now being asked in the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg. However, some of the criticisms of the EU Constitution are as simple in theory as they are difficult to refute.
Hard read
It is a weighty legalistic document, difficult to comprehend and unlikely to be completely understood by even the most diligent reader. "A constitution cannot be composed of 400 pages that a normal person is simply unable to comprehend," says Professor Witold Orłowski, presidential advisor for economic affairs. "The US Constitution has a couple of pages and for more than 200 years it has been working well. The EU Constitution should be easy to understand and should focus on some elementary values and not on the detailed description of every institution and what function it should have."
The reaction to the Constitution's rejection has created even more confusion in Europe than the document itself, and Henryka Bochniarz, president of the Polish Confederation of Private Employers Lewiatan (PKPP), sees the French and Dutch stance as a wider indication of an EU in turmoil.
What happened?
"[The 'no' vote] cannot be taken lightly and we are surprised that politicians behave as if nothing has really happened," she says. "The rejection of the Constitution is proof of the deep crisis the EU is in and I hope that the French 'no' will spark a discussion on the causes of the crisis. Some countries, especially France and Germany, don't want to face the true reasons of stagnation and the outcome of the French referendum results more from the internal problems of France than the EU issue itself."
This instability could bode ill for Poland, especially when it comes to negotiating at the EU budget table. According to Orłowski: "The Constitution had its flaws, but when it is vetoed by one of the EU founding fathers it disturbs the evolution of the organization; we don't really have a vision of further development. We will probably witness a messy period for a while, which for us might translate into trouble with establishing the EU budget."
Less pie
However, reform of the EU budget is almost inevitable, with or without the Constitution, and some believe that, for Poland, this is not a bad thing. "We all know that the EU budget needs reform. Poland is one of the biggest net beneficiaries of the budget but a significant part of the EU budget is spent on agriculture, and the country that gets the most is France," says Rafał Antczak, Civic Platform's (PO) economic advisor.
"For Poland, in even the medium-term perspective, it would be favorable to make the agricultural market more liberal, because Polish farmers are already competitive and would be even more competitive if the EU cut subsidies for agriculture. Polish producers would of course lose subsidies but in the long term it would be more important for them to increase exports and get really small, subsistence-level subsidies from the EU. But such a change will have to be proposed by big EU countries."
Competition fear
The French rebuff will have no effect on Polish entrepreneurs, says Antczak. "Polish companies are already regarded as very strong competition. However, without forcing some kind of socialist equalization, they could be even more competitive both on quality and costs level," he says.
"One of the strongest arguments mentioned by the critics of the EU Constitution is that it is too complicated and that it is not clear for anyone what its consequences are. So, for Polish companies that have already increased exports to the EU, the situation will not change and will be as favorable as it is now."
Muddy waters
The 'no' campaign capitalized on a number of factors, and the French and Dutch governments failed to learn the mistakes from the previous 'no' votes in earlier referendums on the Nice and Maastricht treaties in Ireland and Denmark. Opposition to the EU Constitution managed to pull in issues that had little to do with the document itself but muddied the waters to such an extent that many voters felt afraid of change, and were effectively voting to maintain the status quo. The prospect of Turkey joining the EU was a central plank for 'no' campaigners, as was the much-maligned Services Directive, which sought to open up the services industry in the EU. This latter issue struck a particularly harsh chord with French voters, who live in fear of the now infamous 'Polish plumber' crossing the border to take their jobs and fuel French unemployment even further. In France and the Netherlands, a 'no' vote is as much in protest at two ineffective governments who have failed to lift their countries out of an economic slump, as a snubbing of Europe.
However, debate in France in the run-up to the referendum was furious. Five of the country's top-10-selling non-fiction books were about the Constitution. TV schedules were stuffed with debate, with one Paris Match poll claiming that 83 percent of the population had discussed the treaty in the week leading into the vote. Such a level of debate is unlikely to take place in Poland, now that the French and Dutch have sprung leaks in the good ship Constitution, and while some argue that a Polish referendum is an exercise in futility, others see it as vital.
The big debate
"[We need] an in-depth debate before the voting because the majority of us don't really know what the Constitution is about. It is also our responsibility to inform people," asserts Bochniarz. "It is in our best interest to [have a] referendum and it should take place as soon as possible."
"We have an obligation to do it," says Orłowski. "If there are 23 countries saying 'yes' and only two saying 'no', then it is some kind of a starting point for the further discussion. It shows to the 'no' countries that, in a sense, they disappointed the others. And that will motivate [Europe] for further work. The remaining countries have every right to express their own opinion. We should have the referendum in Poland [and] the sooner the better."
Crisis talks
As the WBJ was going to press, Polish politicians were organizing crisis talks to discuss whether a Polish referendum would go ahead. President Aleksander Kwaśniewski was leading the charge, insisting that Poles needed to have their say. Just getting the vote to take place will be no easy task, as it will need at least 231 of the 460 deputies in the Sejm to vote in its favor.
However, a referendum in Poland has inherent dangers, and could influence the general and presidential elections. Many 'no' campaigners were jumping on a political bandwagon and grabbing the limelight to further their own domestic parliamentary careers, and the heroes of the 'no' vote will no doubt be wearing their European campaign medals when general election time rolls around.
"We don't want the treaty to become an object of political games and are surprised that there's no one, apart from the unpopular Democratic Party, to defend it, because the Constitution [is viewed as] a lost cause. It proves the lack of political maturity among our politicians," says Bochniarz. "We don't want other countries to decide for us. I think Poland should aspire for more."
Additional reporting by Katarzyna Dębek
These are dark days in Brussels and Europe. The EU has been left reeling after two knockout blows from the French and the Dutch crippled its Constitution. While some within the Union say it is little more than a bump on the road to progress, critics have gloatingly called time on a trading bloc that has largely failed to force march its patchwork economic army from stumbling growth into soaring success.
The demise of the EU Constitution has called into question the very notion of the EU, with its much-vaunted policy document rejected by the populace of one of its founding members. Many difficult questions are now being asked in the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg. However, some of the criticisms of the EU Constitution are as simple in theory as they are difficult to refute.
Hard read
It is a weighty legalistic document, difficult to comprehend and unlikely to be completely understood by even the most diligent reader. "A constitution cannot be composed of 400 pages that a normal person is simply unable to comprehend," says Professor Witold Orłowski, presidential advisor for economic affairs. "The US Constitution has a couple of pages and for more than 200 years it has been working well. The EU Constitution should be easy to understand and should focus on some elementary values and not on the detailed description of every institution and what function it should have."
The reaction to the Constitution's rejection has created even more confusion in Europe than the document itself, and Henryka Bochniarz, president of the Polish Confederation of Private Employers Lewiatan (PKPP), sees the French and Dutch stance as a wider indication of an EU in turmoil.
What happened?
"[The 'no' vote] cannot be taken lightly and we are surprised that politicians behave as if nothing has really happened," she says. "The rejection of the Constitution is proof of the deep crisis the EU is in and I hope that the French 'no' will spark a discussion on the causes of the crisis. Some countries, especially France and Germany, don't want to face the true reasons of stagnation and the outcome of the French referendum results more from the internal problems of France than the EU issue itself."
This instability could bode ill for Poland, especially when it comes to negotiating at the EU budget table. According to Orłowski: "The Constitution had its flaws, but when it is vetoed by one of the EU founding fathers it disturbs the evolution of the organization; we don't really have a vision of further development. We will probably witness a messy period for a while, which for us might translate into trouble with establishing the EU budget."
Less pie
However, reform of the EU budget is almost inevitable, with or without the Constitution, and some believe that, for Poland, this is not a bad thing. "We all know that the EU budget needs reform. Poland is one of the biggest net beneficiaries of the budget but a significant part of the EU budget is spent on agriculture, and the country that gets the most is France," says Rafał Antczak, Civic Platform's (PO) economic advisor.
"For Poland, in even the medium-term perspective, it would be favorable to make the agricultural market more liberal, because Polish farmers are already competitive and would be even more competitive if the EU cut subsidies for agriculture. Polish producers would of course lose subsidies but in the long term it would be more important for them to increase exports and get really small, subsistence-level subsidies from the EU. But such a change will have to be proposed by big EU countries."
Competition fear
The French rebuff will have no effect on Polish entrepreneurs, says Antczak. "Polish companies are already regarded as very strong competition. However, without forcing some kind of socialist equalization, they could be even more competitive both on quality and costs level," he says.
"One of the strongest arguments mentioned by the critics of the EU Constitution is that it is too complicated and that it is not clear for anyone what its consequences are. So, for Polish companies that have already increased exports to the EU, the situation will not change and will be as favorable as it is now."
Muddy waters
The 'no' campaign capitalized on a number of factors, and the French and Dutch governments failed to learn the mistakes from the previous 'no' votes in earlier referendums on the Nice and Maastricht treaties in Ireland and Denmark. Opposition to the EU Constitution managed to pull in issues that had little to do with the document itself but muddied the waters to such an extent that many voters felt afraid of change, and were effectively voting to maintain the status quo. The prospect of Turkey joining the EU was a central plank for 'no' campaigners, as was the much-maligned Services Directive, which sought to open up the services industry in the EU. This latter issue struck a particularly harsh chord with French voters, who live in fear of the now infamous 'Polish plumber' crossing the border to take their jobs and fuel French unemployment even further. In France and the Netherlands, a 'no' vote is as much in protest at two ineffective governments who have failed to lift their countries out of an economic slump, as a snubbing of Europe.
However, debate in France in the run-up to the referendum was furious. Five of the country's top-10-selling non-fiction books were about the Constitution. TV schedules were stuffed with debate, with one Paris Match poll claiming that 83 percent of the population had discussed the treaty in the week leading into the vote. Such a level of debate is unlikely to take place in Poland, now that the French and Dutch have sprung leaks in the good ship Constitution, and while some argue that a Polish referendum is an exercise in futility, others see it as vital.
The big debate
"[We need] an in-depth debate before the voting because the majority of us don't really know what the Constitution is about. It is also our responsibility to inform people," asserts Bochniarz. "It is in our best interest to [have a] referendum and it should take place as soon as possible."
"We have an obligation to do it," says Orłowski. "If there are 23 countries saying 'yes' and only two saying 'no', then it is some kind of a starting point for the further discussion. It shows to the 'no' countries that, in a sense, they disappointed the others. And that will motivate [Europe] for further work. The remaining countries have every right to express their own opinion. We should have the referendum in Poland [and] the sooner the better."
Crisis talks
As the WBJ was going to press, Polish politicians were organizing crisis talks to discuss whether a Polish referendum would go ahead. President Aleksander Kwaśniewski was leading the charge, insisting that Poles needed to have their say. Just getting the vote to take place will be no easy task, as it will need at least 231 of the 460 deputies in the Sejm to vote in its favor.
However, a referendum in Poland has inherent dangers, and could influence the general and presidential elections. Many 'no' campaigners were jumping on a political bandwagon and grabbing the limelight to further their own domestic parliamentary careers, and the heroes of the 'no' vote will no doubt be wearing their European campaign medals when general election time rolls around.
"We don't want the treaty to become an object of political games and are surprised that there's no one, apart from the unpopular Democratic Party, to defend it, because the Constitution [is viewed as] a lost cause. It proves the lack of political maturity among our politicians," says Bochniarz. "We don't want other countries to decide for us. I think Poland should aspire for more."
Additional reporting by Katarzyna Dębek
