The French people voted down the proposed EU constitution in a referendum today, temporarily lifting the dark cloud that was descending over Europe. In order to go into effect, it needed the approval of all 25 current member states. The French non will send EU architects back to the drawing board.

If passed, the new constitution would have given absolute power to Brussels on all domestic issues in a system controlled primarily by unelected bureaucrats. An elected parliament would have had an advisory role. At the state level, members of parliament would have been reduced to bureaucratic functionaries. This dictatorship in the eyes of its architects would have created a “more efficient” European Union where “cooperation” would be assured.

Whether or not a new version will be an improvement remains to be seen. The debate on the constitution has been nothing if not utterly dishonest. Utter failure by journalists of the old media to analyze and impart accurate information left voters in the dark about what the constitution is all about. Politicians selling the document focused on bright and shiny intentions rather than the real effect passage of the document would have.

At one point in the process, a set of basic, on-point criticisms did reach the public. The proposed constitution has problems with enforcement of human rights – depending as it does on stated intentions that bureaucrats with overwhelming power will create one huge happy socialist state. Another problem is that it would eliminate the hard-won democracy that exists in Europe today for the same reason.

To reduce the damage done by the truth, promoters quickly claimed that significant changes were made that fixed the problems. Journalists generally seemed just as befuddled as everyone else, reporting for the most part that they did not really understand the complex issues raised by the long bureaucratic document to begin with, let alone what difference a set of small and insignificant changes would make. It was really just the same constitution with yet another dishonest cover story.

So what will the next proposal look like? No one knows right now, but there will most certainly be attempts to revitalize the old one. “A new cover story is all it needs,” someone will suggest. And with the blind, deaf, and dumb dominance of the old managed news media still at their disposal, the forces of evil and ignorance will stand a chance of creating yet another great catastrophe in Europe.

Roger F. Gay