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.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS