Unforeseen political events are the developers of deep currents that drive companies. The likely victory of the "no" can be decrypted as expressing the total loss of credibility of the policy to the anxieties of the majority of the French.
Young people, we have seen during the show with Jacques Chirac, have more perspective and more spark, unemployment and goes to the heart, small jobs are the second-best solution, their degrees of rags for paper, opaque future. Workers, employees and executives of the private sector are faced with a stagnation of their income while needs and loads has increased. The growth is down. An employee of the private six is unemployment, which is a threat to all. Retirement is a paradise lost, except for the rich or the overclockers of savings.
Self-employed workers, traders and small entrepreneurs are harassed by a legal, regulatory, tax and social system stifling and faced with unbearable load levels. They survive, but often wrong, and see nothing in policy that can give them hope. They regard themselves as turkeys of the political farce for several decades. Officials are not faced with the spectre of unemployment and often early retirement seems to be better assured by the depth of the coffers of the State. But all is not rosy for them: them also faced a stagnation of their income without the prospect of improvement and the cumbersome nature of public service that discourages the most competent and motivated. System which they enjoy, they know that it is at the end. Finally there is a fringe forgotten millions of households living of RMI, social aid, family aid, oscillating between odd jobs and unemployment, living expedients and the crumbs of the company, for which the future is definitely plugged.
More generally, as in the years preceding 1789, the social system is rigidifie and freezes, social classes become waterproof, the social wall of shame is under construction. The hope of collective or individual progress has disappeared. These legitimate anxieties, the response of the political class is pathetic. The Raffarin Government is perceived as a cork tossed about by the ripples of pressure groups, not daring to tackle the problems of substance, pensions, health, education, and particularly unemployment. Of scope in scope, compromise by compromise, of raffarinade in borlotise, back in retreat, the eyes on the category dusting powder, its credit collapsed.
But the French, in their majority, believe the PS more able to accentuate to the problems of the country, locked in an old statist logic, unable to ease the economy, through bureaucratic or trade union bastions that block progress and growth. They did not forget that the periods of the left in power have been less dire than those of the right. François Hollande is perceived as an enarque bourgeois without charisma and ideas. Is not Blair who wants. If the social situation is responsible for the "no", then the left is as guilty as the right in the eyes of voters.
The convergence of the UMP and PS on the "Yes" gives an opportunity to the elector to return back to back the two camps. In traditional elections, the ruling party is "punished" and rewarded opposition. But this result is not intended by the voter. It would eliminate Charybdis without vote Scylla. In the referendum on the European Constitution, the voter may finally snapping beak both François Hollande and PS, and Chirac/Raffarin and their Government. It is, ironically, because the UMP and PS support both the "Yes" that the "no" will triumph.
The left and right are separated by the thickness of a sheet of cigarette paper. It is the same policy made by at the bottom like men, out of the same mould, seen as unable to resolve the problems. In the absence of elections in 2005, the only way for the voter to shout his disappointment, anger or his anguish, it is to vote no. This is not a "no" to Europe, even liberal. Among those voting no, many know that Europe has been a blessing, many feel that one of the cannonballs at the foot of the France is the brake pressure groups and trade unions, the weight of social charges and taxes, the yoke of the myriad of laws, regulations and procedures. They want no less than liberalism, but more intelligent liberalism.
In the "no" camp, there of course concerned of offshoring or foreign competition. But this concern is secondary to their true fear: unemployment and the decline in revenues. Their concern is artificially recovered and used in anti-libéralisme by a small but noisy minority composed of Communists, of the possible, and anti-globalization.
The "no" is or a "no" to Europe, or a "no" anti-liberal, untruths which arrange right and fundamentally statist French left. It is simply a serious warning to politicians: "Give us true reasons for hope or go." Supporters of the "no", whether of Buffet, Villiers, Pasqua, Le Pen, Emmanuelli or Fabius did elsewhere no weight and no role in this process. The French want to express themselves, not to bless this diverse coalition of exceeded men. The more they are silent, more ahead of the "no" will be strong.
Who will benefit from the "no" A single man, but partisan of the "Yes", because it will be seen as the only possible remedy in this daunting Marsh: Nicolas Sarkozy. If the "no" triumph widely, and he triumphed through political divisions and class, it will be our next President. The abyss which is open between the political class and the French will Sarkozy to power as there will be a "no" to the referendum.