The French Cut Off the Debate
It will take a bit of time for the dust to settle and before those of us interested in freedom in Europe can determine the meaning of the rejection of the proposed EU constitution by the French voters. Overall, I think that the act of rejection was a good thing for Europe, as the constitution was quite a monstrosity and absurdly long and complex for a constitution. The reasons for the rejection, however, were manifold, and many of them were profoundly illiberal and based on a fear that the EU is a force for liberalization (in the good old European sense of the term) in Europe, as in fact it substantially has been over the past decades. Will the rejection mean a revival of the ideal of the EU as a free trade zone or the beginning of a rejection of free trade in Europe? We’ll know soon.
{ 2 comments }
You and I agree that this was a good result, and I guess Justin Raimondo would as well. Perhaps you’ll wish to reconsider your verdict.
Just one thought. Although the European Union (formerly the European Community) promoted (a sort of) free trade within its boundaries, it was always more accurately described as a customs union.
>the EU is a force for liberalization (in the good old European sense of the term) in Europe, as in fact it substantially has been over the past decades
Not really true. Despite the claim made occasionally on its behalf that it’s supposed to be a free-trade union, and despite a few success stories, the EU’s main effect has to been to pass an avalanche of regulations which have had the effect of entrenching corporatism and destroying competition. Read “The Mad Officials” by Christopher Booker and Richard E. North for plenty of examples.
Comments on this entry are closed.