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.
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS