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
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself
RSS