France's EU vote: MSM won't explain it.

We'll soon know the result of France's EU Constitution vote, at which point hundreds of MSM reporters and pundits will tell us why the French voted as they did.

Most of what they'll say will be some form of an MSM consensus explanation. It will be an oversimplification at best, if not largely wrong.

How can it be otherwise given that, among other things, most MSM journalists haven't read the constitution? Doing so is a daunting task. The document goes on for hundreds of pages.

Someone who has studied, debated, and written about the constitution is William Rees-Mogg, former London Times editor, now a member of the House of Lords. In a March 2005 op-ed he noted:

Article 3 (of the Constitution) reads: “The Union shall work for sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and with a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.”

We have to take this seriously, but these aspirations are neither defined nor justiciable. Suppose they were brought in front of the European Court of Justice, on the complaint that the European institutions were failing to achieve these objectives.

Rees-Moog then asked questions many French votes have asked themselves

What is “sustainable development”? How can Europe achieve “balanced economic growth”? What does “balanced” mean in that context? Is “economic growth” desirable in all circumstances? What is a “social market”? In what ways does it differ from an ordinary “market economy”? Can a “social market economy” be “highly competitive”, or will its social character be a hindrance to its competitiveness? What is the appropriate level of full employment? Is it 3 per cent unemployment, as Lord Beveridge once suggested? Is it the 10 per cent which is the current German level? What is “social progress”? Can it be measured by income differentials? Or by educational standards? Might there not be a conflict between social progress and economic growth? How does one measure the “improvement of the quality of the environment”? Indeed, what is “the quality of the environment”? How should Europe promote “scientific and technological advance”? By subsidies? How would they fit in with fair competition?

You can read the whole thing here.

MSM has said a lot during the campaign about the vote being a referendum on Chirac and his government. No doubt, whichever why the vote goes we'll hear more about the "Chirac factor"

Why not? It's simply explained, and you can prepare alternative leads before the polls close. "Tonight, in what is being viewed as a resounding rejection of President Chirac's leadership ...." Or, "Tonight, in what is being viewed as a show of support for President Chirac's leadership ....."

If you can peddle the Chirac stuff, why read the constitution? And Rees-Mogg's questions? Well, who wants complexity when simplicity will do?

But you know Rees-Mogg's questions and others like them where on the minds of many French voters today.

I'll watch for Rees-Mogg's post-election op-ed and link to it.

Bonne chance et bonsoir.