Why the French Rejection of the EU Treaty is both Good and Bad

The French people soundly rejected a proposed new constitution for the European Union, which would have further integrated the western part of the Eurasian subcontinent (it is rightly noted by geographers that Europe is not a continent in and of itself, and if history had not developed as it had, Europe would never have been classified as a continent, but I digress).

Europe's bloody thousand-year history was to come to an end after the denoument of the Second World War. So far, it has succeeded. But it is hardly time to make any sort of bold statements about peace in Europe with only sixty intervening years. The French rejection of the new EU constitution, and the impending defeat of the same by the Dutch exposes the deep-rooted, centuries old nationalism and cultural differences that have divided Europe throughout the ages. Without doubt, economic concerns are the overriding reason for the rejection, at least outwardly. But the reality is that the economic sovereignty issues are merely the manifestation of uneasiness the French have in signing over their national autonomy to German bureaucrats in Brussels.

When examining the economic problems of the Eurozone, it is important to recognize that the European economies, particularly in Western Europe, are stagnating rather miserably. They are experiencing little, if any economic growth, and massive unemployment. The situation is so wretched in Italy, that it would not be out of the realm of possibility if the Italians withdrew from the Euro altogether in the next few years. The integration of different economies with different fundamental infrastructures has proved to be a more difficult task in reality than it was in theory. With the widespread inequities in GDP, economic institutions, etc. that separate the countries of East and West Europe, there should be no wonder about why countries are weary of further economic and political integration.

For the United States, this development could be extremely positive, particularly in the short term. Leaders across Europe will now have to turn their attention and focus inward to deal with this major setback, and they will have to engage in serious gut-checking in order to determine the best future course of action in Europe. This strengthens the United States' hand in world affairs, and also puts to rest, at least temporarily, further talk of Europe as a "counter-weight" to U.S. global influence. T.R. Reid and the handful of other American Europhiles who released a flurry of books a few months ago declaring the dawn of a new age with Europe at the helm should now be hanging their heads in shame. The superficial success of Europe has now been proven to be just that, and the picture will begin to dim even further in the coming months.

However, there is a distinct danger in the French rejection of the EU treaty this week. As the Turks continue to overwhelm Germany through immigration, and the Algerians France, and various Arab sects the Netherlands, the possibility of a new bloody Europe emerges. With ethnic conflict continuing to rise in the Netherlands and parts of France, and the inevitable rise of radical elements among the indigenous population in response, the Turk will become to the 21st Century German what the Jew was to the early 20th Century German. The dangerous reality for Europe is that the Jew was not a threat in the 20th Century, but the Muslim is. As immigration control policies increase in Europe, so will Islamic violence and terrorism. A fractured European continent enhances the ability of Islamic factions to take control of smaller political units on the continent through strategic immigration.

Europe is in turmoil. Let us see what comes of it.