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
Somehow, US intelligence identified “the Houthis’ top missile guy” and pinpointed his exact location. At 1348 hours (Washington time), March 15, President Trump’s national security advisor Mike Waltz texted, “positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building.” The unsuspecting Romeo entered. High above, the drone monitoring the building registered a flash. When the smoke cleared, Mr. Waltz texted, “…And it’s now collapsed.” RIP. The star-crossed “top missile guy” had been target number one in the now uproarious US Navy bombing campaign on that Sunday against the Yemeni rebels who have been holding the Red Sea hostage since October 19,
You wish every Taiwanese spoke English like I do. I was not born an anglophone, yet I am paid to write and speak in English. It is my working language and my primary idiom in private. I am more than bilingual: I think in English; it is my language now. Can you guess how many native English speakers I had as teachers in my entire life? Zero. I only lived in an English-speaking country, Australia, in my 30s, and it was because I was already fluent that I was able to live and pursue a career. English became my main language during adulthood
China on Tuesday, April Fool’s Day, began two-day joint-force military exercises around Taiwan, painting them as a “severe warning and forceful containment against Taiwan independence.” However, the exercises have again proven the country increasingly showcasing its military muscles to be a true “troublemaker.” Without prior notice, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) Eastern Theater Command launched large-scale exercises codenamed “Strait Thunder-2025A,” deploying aircraft, drones and naval vessels including the Shandong aircraft carrier, as well as armed militia in the air and waters around Taiwan. The PLA claimed the military exercises were practice for precision strikes and a blockade to “close
Taiwan on Monday celebrated Freedom of Speech Day. The commemoration is not an international day, and was first established in Tainan by President William Lai (賴清德) in 2012, when he was mayor of that city. The day was elevated to a national holiday in 2016 by then-president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). Lai chose April 7, because it marks the anniversary of the death of democracy advocate Deng Nan-jung (鄭南榕), who started Freedom Era Weekly to promote freedom of expression. Thirty-six years ago, a warrant for Deng’s arrest had been issued after he refused to appear in court to answer charges of
RSS