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.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
The political order of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) first took shape in 1988. Then-vice president Lee succeeded former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) after he passed, and served out the remainder of his term in office. In 1990, Lee was elected president by the National Assembly, and in 1996, he won Taiwan’s first direct presidential election. Those two, six and four-year terms were an era-defining 12-year presidential tenure. Throughout those years, Lee served as helmsman for Taiwan’s transition from martial law and authoritarianism to democracy. This period came to be known as the “quiet revolution,” leaving a legacy containing light
Taiwan no longer wants to merely manufacture the chips that power artificial intelligence (AI). It aims to build the software, platforms and services that run on them. Ten major AI infrastructure projects, a national cloud computing center in Tainan, the sovereign language model Trustworthy AI Dialogue Engine, five targeted industry verticals — from precision medicine to smart agriculture — and the goal of ranking among the world’s top five in computing power by 2040: The roadmap from “Silicon Island” to “Smart Island” is drawn. The question is whether the western plains, where population, industry and farmland are concentrated, have the water and
RSS