As promised, more analysis.

As regular readers will know, the Dutch rejection finds its origins in a deep concern over the way domestic and European politics have been played over the past decade. The expensive abandonment of the Dutch Guilder in favor of the Euro, the concerns over immigration and the Fortuyn and Van Gogh killings deepened these feelings, all more or less at the same time. Absent a real domestic culprit it wasn’t that hard to pinpoint the European Union on which voter discontent could be vented. As Dan Drezner correctly notes, it makes the Dutch vote markedly different from the French rejection where socialist and protectionist sentiments drove the end result. Make no mistake, the Dutch left campaigned hard and played an important role but they were not decisive.

The center-right Balkenende coalition, which hasn’t performed that well, should now hand its assignment back to the Queen and call for new elections. That may open the door for a resurgent Labour Party and a move leftwards. I noted the irony of a leftward move following a right-conservative rejection of the EU Constitution yesterday, but it’s not as illogical as it sounds. None of the large parties in The Netherlands have been capable of formulating and presenting a vision for a Dutch participation in Europe, they all waffled from the same page: Europe is good, great opportunities, unique co-operation, manifest destiny, whatever. So the voter has been clueless where to go with concerns and was forced to zigzag the electoral landscape on impulse. Exactly the same applies to immigration and integration: no one provided a real platform, all parties served up politically correct talking points giving no real option to the voters. An election following the decisive vote on Europe yesterday would force parties to take a clear stand and campaign on it accordingly.

The country by the way is also devoid of appealing politicians, one of the nation’s more intelligent Euroskeptics and the one to ignite the immigration debate, Frits Bolkestein, retired (ironically, yes) to a EU Commissioner role in Brussels and is now in his seventies and unlikely to return to play hardball in The Hague. The man who articulated these points most convincingly is dead and following the Balkenende debacle the nation may now be looking to Labour-leader Wouter Bos who is best described as a sort of Tony Blair who voted against the War in Iraq and in favor of the EU Constitution. Hardly an attractive option and after the no-vote his appeal may have lessened considerably.

On a more practical level the EU Constitution in its present form is dead. Despite Michael Totten’s helpful suggestions it begs the question if there really is an immediate need for such a document. As mentioned before, the voters did not vote on the constitution but on broader issues and even if a simpler document had been presented we would probably have seen the same outcome, minus one or two percent. A constitution is not a panacea - the United Kingdom has done quite well without one – and the European Union can easily operate and work with the various treaties that are currently in place for the time being.

What is required in all member states is, rather than throwing pre-cooked and complicated documents in front of the voters, a debate about what Europe should look like first. Only then can you determine how to improve the existing legal framework and yes, Europeans have a tendency as opposed to Americans to attach more importance to the role of the state and as a result laws get much wordier. Also, there have been many recent entrants from Eastern Europe, the Euro was introduced and many other pan-European laws have come into being, maybe it’s time to take a break and digest all of this first before racing to get Turkey inside the tent while ramming a constitution down every European’s throat.

So here’s the deal. Continue the debate and work with the framework we have. That in itself will be difficult as the interests of the various participants diverge sharply. The appointment of Dominique de Villepin as the new French Prime-Minister is all the evidence you need to know that France will continue forcefully to build a Europe as a counterweight to American power, a sentiment not exactly shared in London and as confirmed yesterday, in Amsterdam.