Europe's leaders have met and restarted the process intended to bring the EU a constitution. But instead of reviving a failed effort, the EU needs a new direction.
I say this as leader of the party which has been at the forefront of Britain's engagement with Europe. It was a Conservative government that first applied for membership in the early 1960's. A Conservative government took the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community in 1973. Margaret Thatcher worked with Jacques Delors to forge the Single Market in 1986.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
So I have no doubt that Britain must remain influential within the union. But British policy towards the EU has often led to worse rather than better relations among member states. Faced with a new EU initiative, our traditional response has often been to oppose it, vote against it, lose the vote, then sulkily to adopt it while blaming everyone else. Many Europeans are sick of British vetoes. So am I.
Of course there are basic requirements that all member states must accept. Foremost are the four freedoms of the single market; free movement of goods, services, people and capital. But a single market does not require a single social or industrial policy, far less a common taxation policy. Allowing countries to pursue their own policies in these areas encourages competitiveness. Forcing common standards means that Europe will fall further behind as member states shuffle their costs onto their neighbors.
Which areas should be applied to every member state, and which should be optional? I believe that every member state should administer those policies that do not directly and significantly affect other member states.
In areas which serve their national interest, individual members should decide whether to retain wholly national control or whether to co-operate with others. The union's members should form a series of overlapping circles: different combinations of members should be able to pool their responsibilities in different areas of their own choosing.
Precedents exist for this. NATO has been flexible since its inception. France signed up for membership but later refused to submit her armed forces to NATO's central command. Similar flexibility exists with the Euro, the Schengen Agreement, and the Social Chapter.
These precedents can be extended. So far, everyone has had to move forward together, with individual countries negotiating specific opt-outs. But since 1998, there has been a procedure within the Treaties B called enhanced co-operation B that could allow some members to go ahead with further integration in a specific area without involving every other member.
Instead of individual member states having fraught negotiations to opt-out of a new initiative, those that support it can simply opt-in. Countries that want to integrate further can do so. They don't need to drag Britain and others kicking and screaming in their wake because the others are not compelled to join them. In this way we can break free of the institutionalized tug of war that has characterized EU relations.
I am not talking about a two-speed Europe. That implies that we are all agree on the destination and differ only about the speed of the journey. I don't want to reach the destination that some of our partners may aspire to. But I don't want to block their way.
There are some who say that this would mean a loss of influence on the part of those countries which choose not to integrate more closely. But influence is not an end in itself -- it is a means to an end. Britain does not need a seat at the table when decisions on the Euro are taken. Our economy has not been adversely affected by staying out. Keeping the pound does not mean that we oppose the Euro, or hope for its failure.
The EU should stop trying to do everything and concentrate on doing fewer things more effectively. It should give member states the chance to develop an approach to Europe that suits their national traditions, within the EU framework.
It is on this basis that British Conservatives oppose the proposed constitution. We disagree with many of its contents, of course, but also oppose the idea of having an EU constitution at all. There is a world of difference between an association of nation states bound together by treaty, and a single entity, whether you call it a state or not, with its own legal personality, deriving its authority from its own constitution.
If this constitution were accepted in anything like the proposed form, the EU would gain many attributes and trappings of statehood: its own president and foreign minister, its own legal system. The supremacy of EU law would derive not from acts of national parliaments but from a supra-national constitution. That is a radical change, not the mere tidying-up exercise some suggest.
I do not believe it is right to make a change of such magnitude without specifically consulting the people on whose behalf we govern. Elected parliaments do not own our liberties. They safeguard them, and should not diminish those liberties without an explicit mandate. Any proposal for a new constitution must be put to the British people, to the people in each EU member state.
Michael Howard, Leader of the Conservative Party, is a former British Home Office Minister. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing