Search

The period since the early 1990s has seen a marked shift in the terms of Dutch European discourse, as dramatically highlighted by the country's 'No' vote in its 2005 referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty. The present paper examines the trajectory of this discursive shift, suggesting that a traditional 'federalist' referential has been replaced by an elite discourse focused primarily on defining the 'limits of Europe' in intersecting substantive and geographical terms. A general framework for the understanding of national discourses of European integration is first set out, highlighting the key role played by national elites as mediators between the European and the national political systems. The Dutch case is then examined against this background, chronicling the general terms of the 'critical turn' in national European discourse, the 2005 referendum campaign, post-referendum party positioning and discussions surrounding the 2007 Reform Treaty. Despite the persistence of strong, underlying support for Dutch EU membership, it is finally argued that The Netherlands has not (as yet) found a stable, cohesive national narrative of its 'fit' and 'place' in the contemporary (post-enlargement) project of European integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the affective states of fragmentation that describes the European Union following the Netherlands, France, and Ireland's national referendum. It examines the reactions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to the centrifugal judicial forces that menaces its interpretative monopoly. Furthermore, nature of a Constitution for Europe is discussed.

The process of establishing a constitution for Europe came to an end when voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the proposal. Analyzing both media coverage and survey data, this article seeks to disentangle the reasons why a majority of voters rejected the European Constitution. The authors’ findings suggest that the campaign played an important role in priming certain attitudes and that vote choices, in turn, were driven by specific issue concerns rather than general dissatisfaction with the European Union or national governments. These findings have implications not only for our understanding of direct democracy in Europe but also for the study of campaign effects. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The construction of imaginings of 'Europe' is increasingly closely intertwined with the institutions of the European Union (EU). Constitutional reform of the EU is therefore a crucial moment in the production and reproduction of European imaginaries and requires a cultural geography analysis of the public debates surrounding it and the resulting voting patterns. French and Dutch citizens, in referenda on 29 May and 1 June 2005 respectively, rejected the ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. This article examines the highly contested visions of political elites and citizens in these two countries to explore how Europe is imagined and re-imagined in a period of rapid territorial and institutional change encompassing both the widening and the deepening of the EU. It focuses on two dimensions of integration: widening (ie. enlargement) and deepening (ie. institutional reforms towards more integration) and the associated visions of 'Europe' and 'European-ness.' Questions addressed include “who belongs to Europe and who does not?” (with regard to widening), and “what belongs to European competencies and what should be done nationally or locally?” (with regard to deepening). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the agenda for the future structure and direction of the European Union. France and the Netherlands voted against the European constitution project in 2005. But this does not mean the Union will be reduced to a state of political crisis. Constitutional treaties can be calculated in both material and symbolic terms and social effects in terms of political morality. The Amsterdam and Nice treaty left unfinished institutional business in the face of the pending European Union enlargement.

The article reports that although the European constitution project was rejected, Europe has long since had a constitution in the European treaties. In May and June 2005, France and the Netherlands citizens decided to vote against the proposed constitution. Several reasons why the European treaties represent a constitution for the Union is cited. The European treaties from Rome to Nice constitutionalize a union of democratic legal communities, not an arbitrary hereditary monarchy. These treaties though, are not an egalitarian constitution for the citizenry of Europe.

The article examines the 2005 rejection of the European Constitution Project in a referenda held in France and the Netherlands. For those who voted against the project, it was an awareness that the European Union's free market system was not favoring Europe's middles and working classes. The perception was that Europe's elites were using EU policies to destroy national welfare systems, privatize public services and weaken regulatory devices. The approval of the constitution would have accelerated enlargement of the Union to include Turkey.

The article examines the European Constitution Project after it was rejected in a popular referenda. Although the project was not abandoned, it was placed in a state of suspension to allow a period of reflection for a year before any further decision or action is taken. Fourteen of the 25 member states of the European Union have ratified the project which includes Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece and Hungary. It was rejected by France and the Netherlands. Since France and the Netherlands were two of the founding members of the European Union, their no vote alone placed the project in its current state.

The French and Dutch rejection of the proposed EU Constitution in May 2005 threw the European Union into what many observers regard as its deepest crisis to date. This crisis can also be seen as a unique opportunity for political, economic and institutional renewal, however. The following article outlines the problems presently facing Europe and discusses what changes would have to be made in the EU system of governance in order to overcome them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]