May 31, 2005
Non -- Oui!
The WSJ Ed Page makes a good point: that French voters may have done the right thing for the wrong reasons. Anti-capitalists helped pus the "Non" vote over the top. As Miles would say, "So What?"
The French vote is a victory of democracy against an opaque and elite process that few people really understood. It is also a defeat for those leaders, notably French President Jacques Chirac, who have been unable to deliver on what they promised from a united Europe. The defeat shouldn't be seen as a renunciation of "Europe" writ large, so much as for a particular narrow vision of the Continent.
They can try again with a better Constitution, or exist longer as sovereign states. I think the EU Constitution was a bad deal all around, and its defeat in France is well worth celebrating.
Posted by jk at May 31, 2005 1:26 PM
Oui indeed. As with Roe, the right decision for the wrong reason is often as good as we can get.
When we first discussed the pending defeat of the EU Constitution (http://www.threesources.com/archives/001647.html) JK defended the merits of the Euro in advancing free markets. As a symbol of European centralization I'd always held a dim view of the Euro until then. With a trusted free-market friend defending the thing I was temporarily at a loss for a clear attitude on the matter. It was therefore with great interest I noticed the WSJ (in the article JK links) credit the Euro itself with this NO vote:
"One lesson Americans shouldn't draw, however, is that this is somehow a defeat for the common European currency, despite its 1% speculative fall against the dollar yesterday. The euro's impact may well have contributed to the French defeat by exposing the failure of socialist economic policies. The repudiation earlier this month of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's Social Democrats in their heartland of North Rhine-Westphalia had similar economic causes. The low-tax challenge from other European nations is precisely what many supporters of the euro, including us, had hoped for. The euro has been a liberalizing force in Europe, while the constitution was designed to be centralizing force."
Oui indeed. As with Roe, the right decision for the wrong reason is often as good as we can get.
When we first discussed the pending defeat of the EU Constitution (http://www.threesources.com/archives/001647.html) JK defended the merits of the Euro in advancing free markets. As a symbol of European centralization I'd always held a dim view of the Euro until then. With a trusted free-market friend defending the thing I was temporarily at a loss for a clear attitude on the matter. It was therefore with great interest I noticed the WSJ (in the article JK links) credit the Euro itself with this NO vote:
"One lesson Americans shouldn't draw, however, is that this is somehow a defeat for the common European currency, despite its 1% speculative fall against the dollar yesterday. The euro's impact may well have contributed to the French defeat by exposing the failure of socialist economic policies. The repudiation earlier this month of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's Social Democrats in their heartland of North Rhine-Westphalia had similar economic causes. The low-tax challenge from other European nations is precisely what many supporters of the euro, including us, had hoped for. The euro has been a liberalizing force in Europe, while the constitution was designed to be centralizing force."
Posted by: johngalt at May 31, 2005 2:59 PMStill a Euro fan, but for those who are interested, Larry Kudlow has reported (http://lkmp.blogspot.com/2005/05/buffett-consumers-eafe.html) that Warren Buffet’s shorts on the Dollar break even at 1.22 Euro.
Now would be A REALLY BAD TIME for me personally to see a huge dollar rally should the wizard of Omaha cover. But I have been so tired of hearing my friends whine that the strong Euro was a show of EU economic strength (oxymoron!) and a market reaction to the deficit.
I wouldn’t encourage anybody to take my advice over Mr. Buffet’s, but you might go long to make a play on the cover...
Posted by: jk at May 31, 2005 4:42 PMRoe, aaargh! Ignoring the wisdom of the elegantly crafted U.S. Constitution is not a good idea.
The unconstitutional morass that is McCain-Feingold likely benefits Republicans, and certainly benefits incumbents. But I do not cheer this abomination as a way to keep a GOP majority, I call it an assault on free political speech.
Posted by: jk at May 31, 2005 4:48 PM | What do you think? [3]