Published, The Times, 1 June 2005

By their decisive vote the people of France have killed the European Constitutional Treaty.  If the opinion polls are accurate then during the course of today the Dutch will give it a decent burial.  It would be a grave mistake for Europe’s political leaders to ignore or try to explain away this expression of popular feeling. 

There can be no question of requiring the French, or anyone else, to vote again as Jean-Claude Juncker the Prime Minister of Luxembourg and the current holder of the European Union’s rotating Presidency has suggested.  In fact it is exactly this kind of attitude – one of institutional arrogance – that has led so many people to turn their backs on Europe.

President Chirac may want other countries to press ahead with ratification of the treaty but this is simply not going to happen.

The sooner our own government can come out and openly say that the treaty is dead and that our planned referendum is to be dropped the better.

It would bring political certainty and allow the countries of Europe to focus on what the next steps should be.

Tony Blair has said that we now need a period of reflection.  This has to be the time to consider the type of Europe we want to see at the beginning of the 21st century.  It must not be used as an opportunity to consider how the present treaty can be resurrected.

The French vote has changed the European political landscape.  As political leaders consider the way forward they need to have at the forefront of their thinking the fact that the European Union is built on the consent of people in their nation states.

At any stage this consent can be withdrawn and in many ways this is significance of the vote on Sunday.  It wasn’t simply a wake up call to Europe’s political leaders as some have suggested.  It went further and gave notice that if there was no change of direction then support for the whole European project would be withdrawn.  In expressing this view they were speaking not just for France but for many across Europe.

For Tony Blair there is now the opportunity to really put Britain at the heart of Europe.  In exactly a month’s time he will take over the Presidency of the European Union.  I know that he sees this as a political challenge that needs to be met positively and not as a poisoned chalice.

He will want to construct a framework that will allow Europe to look to the future and be able to grasp the new opportunities that come from globalisation.

As Tony Blair and other leaders begin to consider the next steps they must ensure that they take the people of Europe with them.  This means that there has to be a recognition that the public identify both politically and culturally with their own country and will resist the development of some sort of European super-state which threatens their national identity or intrudes into the way in which they choose to live their lives.

It has to be understood that the original purpose for the Common Market in the 1950’s – to ensure that our continent escaped the ravages of war – is no longer relevant.

With the collapse of the Soviet empire and enlargement to 25 countries, what we now need is a clear statement of the powers we are prepared to see the European Union exercise on our behalf.  This will need to be put in the context of the type of political structure we want to have in Europe.  For example, what role do we want the European parliament to play and how can the powerful European Commission be made more accountable to national parliaments?

What is clear is that some of the deep seated problems that Europe faces can be tackled more successfully if the countries of Europe work together rather than in isolation one from the other.

For some years now Europe has avoided making the difficult choice about the direction in which it intended to go.  Is it to be an inward looking Fortress Europe or one which looks outwards and competes in the global economy.

But time is now short and decisions will have to be taken.  It is an over-simplification to assert as some have that the French vote was a victory for the protectionists.  It was far more complicated than this.

People in France and throughout Europe want to see a practical programme of action that addresses their concerns and recognizes the pressures they are under.

Talk of the future destiny of Europe is simply irrelevant if you have no jobs; have your wages undermined by cheap labour from Eastern Europe or feel your very employment is threatened by the booming economies of China and India.

In order to meet this challenge national political leaders need to take responsibility for some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions. They need to have the political courage to argue that economic reform is vital if globalisation is to be a bringer of opportunity and not a threat.

This can then be supported at a European level by investment in skills, innovation and research in order to improve productivity and competitiveness but alongside these steps there will need to be measures to protect those who are most vulnerable and at risk from change.

In addition to the economic reform agenda there needs to be a new approach to Europe, one which demonstrates a clear move away from excessive integration recognises that people identify first and foremost with their own country.

Further consideration will also need to be given as to how in practical terms an enlarged Europe of 25 countries can work together.  There will be a danger of stagnation and drift with progress impossible to achieve.

To avoid this there will need to be a more flexible approach that will allow groups of countries to act together when they wish to do so.

As a strong pro-European I do not despair at the rejection of the constitutional treaty but see it as perhaps the last chance to renew and reform Europe so that it is relevant and can respond to the needs of its people.