BY voting out a conservative constitution proposed for the European Union, the French and the Dutch have dared to swim against the current. The "no" coalition, consisting largely, although not exclusively, of the radical Left and social movements, won against heavy odds in both countries.

In both, the "no" vote reflected the ruling governments' intense unpopularity and popular resentment against persistent unemployment, and other domestic factors.

Admittedly, the French and Dutch voted from a mix of motives, including xenophobia about immigration, a fear of loss of identity, and wanting to keep Turkey out of the EU. But defence of livelihoods and democratic sovereignty and was even more important.

About 15 percent of the vote was from the isolationist, chauvinistic Right. However, the largest and most attractive part came from the pro-integration Left.

The referendum, especially in

France, reflected a class divide. The upwardly mobile professional voted "yes." But the working class, facing hardship and economic uncertainty, rejected the "Europe of the Bosses."

The referenda spell the constitution's death. This will have a huge moral and political impact globally. Hopefully, it will lead to a democratic debate on the aims and purposes of the European Union: Is its original rationale valid? Should it be rooted in human rights, peaceful coexistence and respect for international law, or should it change?

Should "Social Europe," based on rights to healthcare, education, and welfare, be replaced by "Corporate Europe," where the market rules, competition drives down wages, and the state abandons its citizens?

The world has a big stake in this debate. A progressive "Social Europe" can support global struggles for liberty, justice, and peace, and help resist hegemony and Empire, while reducing North-South inequalities.

But a conservative Europe will become a pale imitation of the United States, at best a competitor, not an alternative. That will perpetu-

ate the present unequal world order. The constitution would have put the EU on that course.

Over the past decade, the EU has hardened its global postures. It competes with the US in selling arms to the Third World. It demands unreasonable concessions on trade in services and manufactures, while retaining agricultural subsidies. This goes against the Third World's interests.

The EU uses softer language than the US, but it arm-twists the Third World just as effectively in

multilateral negotiations and through bilateral Economic Partnership Agreements.

Many EU states took good positions against the Iraq war under the pressure of public opinion. But the principle of non-use of force in international relations isn't reflected in their policy.

The conflict between the idea of a kinder, gentler Europe, and a Europe that projects power and wants to dominate, remains unresolved. The battle over the constitution reflects that conflict. There's a tussle between two agendas: of the people and social rights, and of "free markets" and corporate privilege.

The convention which drafted the constitution was established topdown, through nomination. It was mainly comprised of representatives of governments and national/European parliaments, and excluded civil society.

The constitution subordinates hard-won social rights to so-called free competition, and treats corporate interests as sacrosanct. It whittles down the fundamenta | right to work to the right to look for a job! It removes valuable social protections. And it mandates that

public services be thrown open to "competition."

This spells privatisation of water, healthcare, and education, and liquidates long-established social gains.

The constitution is almost impossible to amend. Any change requires a consensus at three levels. It creates or perpetuates top-heavy structures, like the European Central Bank, "free" from democratic control, and an individual EU president with a term of 30 months -- in place of the more democratic six-month rotating presidency.

Similarly, by amending the

consensus rule, under which all EU decisions had to be unanimous in 25 member-states, it gives excessive powers to the Big Four (Germany, France, Britain, and Italy) and discriminates against smaller states.

It erodes the democratic decision-making space on immigration and social policy and grants the veto to parliaments only for defence, foreign policy, and taxation. The emphasis, however, is on a Common Foreign and Security Policy.

An especially offensive feature of

the constitution is that it contains policy prescriptions. In economics, the emphasis is on "free market" dogmas.

According to Susan George, the famed author of How the Other Half Dies and The Lugano Report, the word "competition" occurs 47 times in the text. "Market" occurs 78 times. "Social progress" is missing!

Equally disturbing is the obligation of each member-state to "improve its military capabilities." The EU, which spends half as much as the US on the military (in GDP terms) is asked to compete with America.

The EU's defence strategy

paper: "A Secure Europe in a Better World," calls for military "intervention anywhere," which is "early, rapid, and when necessary, robust." It says: "We should be ready to act before a crisis occurs." This is similar to the obnoxious Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive/ preventive" war!

Central to this vision is the military-industrial complex. No wonder, European armaments manufacturers have gained enormous influence in Brussels The drafting convention's defence group consulted 13 "experts" -- all from the arms industry or the bureaucracy. Their influence ensures huge new armaments orders. The EU hopes to match the US in military research too -- a disastrously costly move.

The EU's new militaristic orientation is unrelated to any external threat.

The defeat of the constitution is welcome. But now there must be a serious democratic debate on what kind of Europe its people want -- an arrogant Superpower which is unkind to its own citizens, or a federal entity that respects equality, caring-and-sharing, and justice, and wants to reform the present iniquitous world order?

Hopefully, this debate will lead to an elected constituent assembly which drafts a new statute -- not for a Europe of the Bosses, but a Europe of the People.

Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.