Federico Bordonaro

Un mio articolo per ISN-Security Watch cerca di fare un bilancio delle conseguenze del doppio “no” francese e olandese al Trattato costituzionale, un anno dopo i referenda.

[…] one year after the political earthquake that rocked the EU, the bloc’s political parties and observers are committed to identifying major trends - a commitment that has led to the discovery that, notwithstanding the hard blow thrown by the French and Dutch vote, the somewhat catastrophic predictions of many pundits made in the immediate aftermath of the Constitutional Treaty’s rejection turned out to be incorrect.

Certainly, the most ambitious plans for the EU have probably been the real victims of the failed referenda. The French-backed Europe puissance (the goal of building a European political and strategic superpower) or the British-sponsored liberal and pro-deregulation agenda failed to gather any real momentum. However, EU leaders are optimistic on rapidly achieving more pragmatic and realistic policies on more specific issues. And in this respect, Europe’s pre-2005 characteristics have not changed so much.

Sul risultato dei referenda del 2005, la deputata britannica Gisela Stuart si è espressa in modo incisivo [leggi tutto: ]

“The real threat to Europe’s future comes not from those who want to change the direction of the EU, but from those who are too lazy or too arrogant to see a new direction is necessary. The French and Dutch have voted ‘no’ to the Constitution, but much of Europe’s political elite is trying to pretend that this is a ‘maybe’ or even a ‘yes’.

It’s the same old story, and one that has predominated in Whitehall too: the EU is too complicated for voters to comprehend. But people do understand; all too well. They may not know the minutiae of this sub-clause or that article, but in the round they get it right: that’s what electorates do, at general elections and in referendums.

Can you imagine the response if the results in France and Holland had gone the other way and those opposed to the Constitution had argued that ‘yes’ actually meant ‘no’: they would have been branded as undemocratic, and, quite possibly, mad.

Interessante anche la riflessione del conservatore inglese William Hague:

In Britain and some other countries we want the EU to do a great deal less. Others, like the Dutch, want the EU to do less in some areas and more in others while those like the Belgians see a need only for increases in the EU’s power. Our aim must be to let each country find the level of integration it is most comfortable with.

Pochi, comunque, sembrano sensibili alla necessità di un vero ripensamento dell’architettura europea…