BY THEIR decisive vote the people of France have killed the European constitutional treaty. If the opinion polls are accurate then the Dutch today 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, Luxembourg’s Prime Minister and the current President of the EU, has suggested. It is exactly this attitude 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 not going to happen. The sooner our own Government openly says that the treaty is dead and that our planned referendum is to be dropped the better. It would bring 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. It must not be used as an opportunity to consider how the present treaty can be resurrected.

The French vote has changed the political landscape. As leaders consider the way forward they need to have at the forefront of their thinking 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 At any stage this consent can be withdrawn, and in many ways this is the significance of the vote on Sunday. It wasn’t simply a wake-up call to Europe’s political leaders. It gave notice that if there was no change of direction then support for the whole European project would be withdrawn. In expressing this view the French were speaking for many across Europe.

Mr Blair now has the opportunity to put Britain at the heart of Europe. In a month’s time he will take over the presidency of the EU. I know that he sees this as a 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 opportunities that come from globalisation.

As Mr Blair and other leaders begin to consider the next steps they must ensure that they take the people of Europe with them. This demands a recognition that the public identify politically and culturally with their own country and will resist the development of some sort of European superstate which threatens their national identity or intrudes into their lives.

It has to be understood that the original purpose for the Common Market in the 1950s — to ensure that our continent escaped another war — is no longer relevant. With the collapse of the Soviet empire and enlargement to 25 countries, we now need a clear statement of the powers that we are prepared to see the EU exercise on our behalf. This must be put in the context of the type of political structure we want in Europe. For example, what role do we want the European Parliament to play and how can the powerful Commission be made more accountable to national parliaments?

It is clear that some of Europe’s deep-seated problems can be tackled more successfully if the nation states work together rather than in isolation. But for some years now Europe has avoided making the difficult choice about which direction to go. Is it to be an inward-looking Fortress Europe or one which looks outwards and competes in the global economy?

But decisions will have to be taken and taken soon. It is an oversimplification to assert, as some have, that the French vote was a victory for the protectionists. It was far more complicated than that. People in France and throughout Europe want to see a practical programme of action that addresses their concerns and recognises the pressures they are under.

Talk of the future destiny of Europe is irrelevant if you have no job; 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. Political leaders must now take responsibility for some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions and no longer pass them on to be dealt with at European level which has all too often been the case in recent years. As M Chirac has recently discovered they need to have the courage to argue that economic reform is essential 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 that demonstrates a clear move away from excessive integration and recognises that people identify first and foremost with their own country.

Consideration will also need to be given 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 needs 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.

Stephen Byers is Labour MP for Tyneside North

Times Recommends

• Fragility always gets my sympathy vote
• Double it and you get the real jobless total
• Has al-Megrahi paid his council tax?