According to some, the French “NO” will place Europe more then 3 laps behind in the division of economic power between the US, China, India and Europe. But is this really the case?

The Bush administration says, it does not want Europe’s constitutional referendums to fail. With Iraq, China’s seemingly weekly rise, and nuclear weapons issues in Iran and North Korea demanding full attention, the derailing of the European Union’s constitutional project means a trace of undesired uncertainty in the administration’s dealing with the Europeans, although not the world. But officially, and in truth, there will be no flush of schadenfreude in Washington if the referendums in France on Sunday and then in the Netherlands on June 1 are voted down in demonstrations of democracy’s eternal contrariness. For one thing, a negative outcome requiring Europe to rethink its future path very likely means slowing down the entry process of Turkey and Ukraine into the EU - both projects for Europe’s future that the Americans stand behind. The more advanced candidacies of Romania and Bulgaria, both Bush administration buddies, could falter too. All this does not go in the direction of the administration’s notion that an enlarged, coherent EU partner is actually its best possible European play. Still, in terms of American policy, a high administration official said that “relations with Europe won’t change that much” as a result of the referendums, whatever happens.

With a “yes” or a “no”, Europe will continue building its strength towards the other powers, and on the other hand realizes that China and India are moving even faster forward in the economic top ten. But in the past Europe with their current treaties did play their economic game well enough, and it will be not likely they miss the boot completely. The constitution is primarily an internal matter, where the EU should pay attention to the fact that founding members are getting apposed to a constitution.

| Permanent Link | Print This eLog |

(Visited over 19644 times)