The people of France and Holland have spoken. Politicians across Europe now need to listen and think. There were multifarious motives for the "no," but the message is stark. People are disenchanted with the EU. They are confused about its direction or think it is speeding ahead in the wrong one. They feel it lacks connection with their real concerns.
Europe presents too many visible targets to its enemies: from the failure of members of the European parliament to control their expenses to a culture of over-prescriptive regulation. This produces a vicious circle in which national politicians, claiming to be pro-Europeans, make populist attacks on Brussels that only nurture public alienation. In this, French President Jacques Chirac made the mistake of behaving like the average British politician. If political leaders are to persuade their electorates to support the idea of Europe, they have to explain clearly why Europe is a good thing from which we gain many benefits, despite the inevitable frustrations of Brussels.
This is grist to the mill of Britain's anti-Europeans. But only a minority voted against the principle of European integration, for withdrawal or an EU break-up. British Euroskeptics are wrong to think the treaty was rejected because of its institutional proposals.
DISTRESSING
The decisive "no" vote among the younger generation was distressing. The old European project of "an end to war" has inevitably lost resonance. The freedoms Europe offers -- democracy and human rights, the freedom to travel, study, work and settle in different countries -- are taken for granted, though they should not be.
So where does this leave the treaty? The immediate issue is the pressure in London, from some quarters, to kill it off. But British Prime Minister Tony Blair is surely right to insist on proper reflection. Ratification needs the support of all 25 EU members. It is difficult to think of the circumstances in which the French and Dutch votes could be reversed. That leaves Britain for now with no meaningful proposition to vote upon. But Europe's member states should decide on the next steps collectively in the European Council in two weeks' time, rather than unilaterally.
The treaty's institutional reforms would make the EU more effective, transparent and accountable. Europe would be mad to scrap a painfully established consensus. If ratification is put on ice, the hope must be that, in future, popular support could be mobilized to implement those reforms, perhaps in a different form but without seeking to bypass the people's will.
So what is the future for pro-Europeanism? I believe we should turn despair into opportunity by concentrating on Europe's policy and direction, making it easier later to answer the institutional questions. The coming British presidency of the EU should be judged on how far it succeeds in turning the French and Dutch "no" into the makings of a "yes" to a New Europe.
I do not underestimate the challenge. Pro-Europeanism is under sharp attack from a populism of the Right that blames foreigners -- and the prospect of Turkish membership -- for every woe, and a populism of the Left that feeds on fear of globalization, Anglo-Saxon "liberalism," job losses and "delocalization."
If Europe gives in to this populism and opts for the voices that want to erect new barriers between ourselves and "foreigners" and world markets, it will have chosen a protectionist dead end: a cul-de-sac that may save a few jobs in the short term, but will result in declining competitiveness and steady erosion of Europe's social model.
The real problem is a lack of popular consensus on what Europe stands for and where it is going. Europe must press ahead with painful economic reforms. But reform is for a purpose: not to Americanize Europe but to make our European model of society sustainable for generations.
Essentially we need a new social consensus for economic reform as New Labour has advocated in Britain, based on a social justice argument, which is capable of uniting mainstream opinion in France and Germany, as well as Britain and the Netherlands and the rest of the EU's member states.
OPPORTUNE
Hitherto, Britain has offered only some of the answers to Europe's problems. This is why it is opportune that Blair assumes the leadership of the European Council at this time.
He should spend the British presidency helping to drive forward the economic reforms contained in the Barroso Commission's growth and jobs program and formulating a new concept of a modern, reformed social Europe that offers genuine security and opportunity for all.
Making this new case for Europe can galvanize British pro-Europeans. We have to put on the back burner the old argument that Britain has no alternative to Europe. With our present economic success, there is an alternative -- but one that is not as good as being members of a reformed EU and its vast single market.
A more successful Europe is critical to enhancing British prospects of achieving greater prosperity with social justice, and of being part of a strong grouping of states that can advance shared interests and values in a world of globalization.
The time is ripe for the government to go on the front foot in Europe, but not in a divisive way. At home, Blair and his colleagues should make a modern, pro-European case and lead the way forward to a vision of a New Europe that all 25 member states can share.
Peter Mandelson is the EU trade commissioner.
In September 2015, Russia intervened militarily in Syria’s civil war, propping up Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship as it teetered on the brink of collapse. This was the high point of Russia’s resurgence on the world stage and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ability to tilt the war in al-Assad’s favor helped make him a regional power broker. In addition to enhancing Putin’s stature, the operation led to strategic gains that gave Russia leverage vis-a-vis regional and Western powers. Syria was thus a status symbol for the Kremlin. Putin, who sees Russia as a great power on par with the US and China, attaches
With Washington substantially off-guard in power transition, China’s supreme leader, Xi Jinping (習近平), is intensifying an anti-corruption campaign against the top military leadership. At a glance, the move seems to be consistent with his emphasis on the necessity of enhancing military preparedness for a possible full military invasion of Taiwan, because the military is required to be well-disciplined without corruption. Looking carefully, however, a series of purges of several top military leaders since last year begs the question of what dynamics has worked behind the anomaly. More specifically, general Wei Fenghe (魏鳳和) and his immediate successor, Li Shangfu (李尚福), were removed as People’s
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In the weeks following the 2024 US presidential election, I have received one question more than any other from friends in Taiwan — how will Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House affect Taiwan and cross-Strait relations? Some Taiwan counterparts have argued that Trump hates China, so therefore he will support Taiwan, according to the logic that the enemy of one’s enemy is a friend. Others have expressed anxiety that Trump will put pressure on Taiwan to dramatically increase defense spending, or to compensate the United States for allegedly “stealing” America’s semiconductor sector. While I understand these hopes and concerns, I
RSS