Since the shock of the French and Dutch "no" votes against the EU's proposed constitutional treaty, events have followed their inevitable course, but more rapidly than expected.
The French "no" was a massive blow to the political credibility of French President Jacques Chirac. So he did what French presidents usually do in such circumstances: rather than admit that French voters might be right, he sacked Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin as a scapegoat, replacing him with his prot?g? Dominique de Villepin, who has never held an elective office.
Opinions differ as to the reasons for France's rejection of the constitutional treaty. But most analyses suggest that it was directed against high unemployment, magnified by the perceived threat to jobs from the new Central and Eastern European EU members. Naturally, Chirac immediately reaffirmed his faith in the French economic model.
The most undeniable implication of the French vote has been to raise a large question mark over the future of the EU's traditional integration project. Rather than admit any such thing, Chirac hurried to meet German Chancellor Gerhard Schr鐰er, so that they could jointly reaffirm their traditional alliance as the spiritual leaders of this European project, in the hope that the constitutional treaty might yet be rescued. Neither of them have been able to say how this should be done.
The British government tried to wriggle out of taking sides on the implications of the French and Dutch votes by saying that it would suspend its own plans for a referendum, but not cancel it outright. But if the government thought that this mid-way position would finesse its European predicament by appeasing the large anti-European majority in the UK without gratuitously offending the EU's other members, it was quickly disabused.
One consequence of last year's enlargement is that it is forcing a far-reaching renegotiation of all aspects of the EU budget. Most of the 10 new members are much poorer than the old members, and are thus much less able or willing to pay large financial contributions. They expect to be net financial beneficiaries, which would help them modernize.
But the old member states that have hitherto benefited most from the budget -- poorer countries like Spain, Greece, and Portugal -- want the budget to be expanded, so that they can continue to receive money. Old member states that have traditionally contributed most, like Germany and the Netherlands, want to keep the budget as small as possible.
Given this looming negotiation between old and new -- and between rich and poor -- and because Chirac has no cunning proposal for resurrecting the EU constitution, he has sought and found a second scapegoat: Britain has, for over 20 years, benefited from a large rebate in its outsized contribution to the EU budget.
By design the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) gives large financial benefits to countries with large farming sectors, like France, but imposes financial penalties on countries with small farming sectors, like Britain. This inequity long rankled in Britain. In 1984, then prime minister Margaret Thatcher demanded and got a large rebate in the British net contribution, which this year is worth roughly ?5 billion (US$9 billion). Ever since, this concession has been resented by other member states.
Last week, Chirac decided to raise the stakes in the European crisis by going on the offensive against Britain. The time has come, he said, for "our English friends" to understand that they have to make a gesture of solidarity, and renounce the rebate negotiated by Thatcher.
The British government's first reflex was to reject any suggestion that the British rebate is open to discussion: it was justified in 1984, and it is justified today. But British Prime Minister Tony Blair has now gone on the counter-offensive, raising the stakes himself. Britain, he says, might be prepared to put the British rebate on the table, but only if the French are prepared to remove the reasons for it by means of a radical renegotiation of EU farm policy.
From a narrowly British perspective, this might seem a shrewd and reasonable posture for defending British interests. But, by picking up Chirac's challenge, Blair has allowed himself to be drawn away from the general European dilemma (what to do about the constitutional treaty) -- for which Britain is not to blame -- to a specific policy problem (the CAP's finances) on which Britain is isolated.
Coming from anyone else, Blair's proposal to re-think the CAP might seem reasonable; indeed, over the years, the EU has tried (slowly) to reform its defects. Unfortunately, in eight years of power, Tony Blair reinforced the widespread impression in the rest of the EU, that the UK is irremediably skeptical about European integration. His proposal will thus be seen for what it is, a counter-attack on a founding policy of the European project.
The danger is that this week's EU summit will not be devoted to finding a solution to the dilemma of the French and Dutch "no" votes, but instead will be turned into a confrontation between Britain and the rest about the budget. This would be a pity for Europe and for Britain. It would underscore the depth of the chasm between leaders who are seeking to advance the cause of European political integration but are out of touch with their electorates, and the British, who do not like European political integration at all.
Ian Davidson is an adviser to, and a columnist for, the European Policy Center, Brussels. A former columnist for the Financial Times, his most recent book is Voltaire in Exile.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS