Exit from comment view mode. Click to hide this space
Email | Print

欧洲乃英国之家

布鲁塞尔——英国首相大卫•卡梅伦于荷兰发表的万众期待的演讲,完全能标志着一个关乎英国于欧盟地位的转折点。英国任何将权力遣送到威斯敏斯特的尝试都可能成为耗时又麻烦的谈判。正如过去的经历所示,有关宪法能力的内部讨论——本质上是政治上的钻牛角尖——能够分散对经济增长和就业问题此类更大压力事件注意。

企图去回顾欧盟现行法的主要部分(欧盟法律的主体),挑选出英国支持的部分,会创下一个危险的先例。事实上,这会导致零碎立法,分歧,以及欧盟潜在的分裂。然而,尽管权力遣送表面上看起来很吸引,但它会涉及持久以及复杂的程序——不能保证有一个好的结果。

当然,最终,要遣返能力还是退出欧盟,都是由英国政府以及英国人民决定的。但我强烈地相信,英国的成员国资格是位了英国和欧洲的利益。单一市场对英国经济贡献巨大的利益,而欧盟仍然是英国最大的贸易伙伴,它主导英国几乎百分之五十的出口率。

在全球化的世界里,英国为了自己的利益,并不会让自身降级到欧盟的二等成员国,正因这只会削弱本国在欧洲以及其他地区的影响力。

的确,英国的朋友们认识到这一点。最近,美国正发出警告,称英国可能发生的全民公决会意味着这个国家在内部进行改革,而爱尔兰首相恩达•肯尼则说英国退出欧盟将会是个“灾难”。

英国的著名商业人士,也提醒过卡梅伦,若他寻求与欧盟成员之间的批发再次谈判,将会有疏忽地破坏英国经济稳定的危险。他们的呼声,不论来得有多晚,也应该受到重视。

欧元区愈加深入和快速的一体化并不只是一时,而是纯粹有必要。英国选择坚持走出货币联盟,明确表示选择退出统一货币。因此,尽管卡梅伦政府支持欧元区更进一步统一的观点收到欢迎,但欧元区不能也不会在外部成型,也不会赐予英国的利益。

考虑到其他成员国的力争进步的政治目标,英国并不会处于阻碍欧盟其他成员国之间进一步团结的位置。实际上,去年关于“财政契约”的谈判本应该给卡梅伦显示实行所谓的国家否决所存在的难度。

英国仍然在制定欧盟关键政策时扮演者领导的角色,包括有关统一市场、海外发展援助、贸易以及气候变化的措施。英国在这些领域的领导已受到高度赞赏——若英国决定要退出,将会错过这一切。比如说,在司法和民政上,制定这些所有欧盟成员国都采纳至少两年以上的政策时,至今英国的地位举足轻重。

但是卡梅伦政府似乎在打算完全退出参与制定这些政策。当然在英国退出制定这些超过130条的政策——实际上它会在反跨境犯罪上重新划定国家边界——然后寻求重新加入一个经过慎重选择符合自身“国家利益”的少数派,欧盟各机构以及其他26个成员国是不会袖手旁观的。

从欧盟中遣返职能的尝试可能得到英国持有欧洲怀疑论的媒体和部分保守党分子充分支持,但我会质疑这是否真的符合赢过你的长远利益。

欧盟的存在不仅仅表示管制内部市场以及商品、服务、资产和人民之间的自由流动有一系列规则可循。它更是一个联结欧洲大陆的独特而历史悠久的工程。国家自由地共享主权,因为他们相信,团结让彼此强大。我深信英国有着辅助领导这工程的能力——建立在欧洲和英国自身利益之上。

我怀疑卡梅伦正为了纯粹的国内战略原因而进行一场危险游戏。当他说希望英国继续保持欧盟成员国资格是我信任他。但他成为一个不能驯服自己以咒唤来的力量的魔法师徒弟时——为了意识形态上的理由而想要退出欧盟,同时伤害英国公民的强势。

2013年一月一日,标志着英国加入欧盟40年。在下一个40年,欧盟的地位更为重要,这正正是为何英国应该完全致力于创建更好的未来。

Reprinting material from this Web site without written consent from Project Syndicate is a violation of international copyright law. To secure permission, please contact us.

Exit from comment view mode. Click to hide this space

Comments (0)

You need to login in order to leave a comment. If you do not yet have an account, please register.

close

The two commenting options explained

Watch a 1 minute video
to discover how you can comment on the entire article or a specific paragraph. The two images below also explain the two ways of commenting.

1) Entire article comment
Once logged in, simply click inside the comment box where it says "Enter text here." Enter and post your comment.

2) Paragraph comment
Please log in first. Then click to the left of the desired paragraph. Your cursor will automatically move to the comments box. Enter and post your comment.

Show comments of
  1. Commented

    António Correia

    The Maastricht Treaty was announced as a "great leap FORWARD". Since then, only "FORWARD moves" have been allowed in the Maastricht-born "European Union" - mainly the creation of the "single currency" and the birth of a Eurozone with more and more states involved, according to their will and their capability of meeting the doubtful set of "Maastricht criteria" when joining the "single" currency area. Any move which may be seen as a "backward move" has been strictly forbidden, even if nobody can take for granted that this disunited "European Union" is moving forward to something that looks like the promised land. In fact, it is increasingly clear that this road is a "road to nowhere", besides being increasingly painful for more and more member states to go ahead, under the approach which has been adopted to "keep the markets calm" and "save the Euro" - while avoiding the appropriate fiscal transfers and resorting to lending under AUSTERITY constraints. In these days, the European Union is repeatedly following the recommendation: "Keep moving FORWARD, either slowly or rapidly, either jointly or at several speeds!".

    Yes, as Paul Krugman recently said, "The Euro is a shaky construction". Besides ignoring the macroeconomic imbalances within the EU, in the "Maastricht criteria" for Eurozone membership as well as in the subsequent "stability" pacts, the Euro has been designed and confirmed – by Delors et al and followers – as a "single currency" instead of a (much more realistic) "common currency". Now, it is very clear that this was a very bad choice, namely because other components of Delors's dream are missing - such as a European budget amounting, at least, to some "3% [!] of the European GDP".

    Two decades after the Maastricht Treaty, a COMPLETELY NOVEL EU TREATY is mandatory - not a mere set of "positive" , incremental amendments -, so as to avoid a sad situation, in the near future, where the foreseen "European common home" becomes replaced by a true "European house of correction". We need to build a true European Union through a cooperative European disunion, where the Euro survives as a "common", parallel currency - INCLUDING FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM and the other nine "non-Euro states" - but no longer as the "single currency" for a fraction of the EU (currently 17 out of 27 member states)

    [ http://building-a-true-european-union.blogspot.com ]:

    ” – The Euro should be a COMMON currency within the future EU – including the EU27 members outside the current ‘Euro Area’ – but not necessarily the SINGLE currency.
    - In this context, the coexistence of TWO parallel currencies should be allowed in each EU member state (under certain conditions, established in a novel European Treaty), within the framework of an appropriate “Cooperative European Disunion” .
    - Besides the “Common Euro”, the complementary currency in each member state could be either a “national currency” (…) or a completely new currency, shared by that member state and some other “compatible” EU member states, taking into account both the relevant macroeconomic issues and appropriate geographic, historic and cultural issues.”

  2. Commented

    Philip Palij

    "essentially political navel-gazing" indeed.

    May I remind you of the fraudulent entry of Greece into the Eurozone. May I remind you of the incompetent handling of the Eurozone crisis. May I remind you of the EU to spend within its budget.

    If you regard Britain seeking to preserve its democracy, economy and sovereignty as navel gazing then you truly represent why Britain should re-negotiate at the very least and exit if at all possible.

    Then you can find some other foolish country to spend billion upon billion on useless wasteful pet projects all unnacountably.

    No home fore Britain in that madness Mr Shulz. Think again

  3. Commented

    Joshua Ioji Konov

    The European Union shows inadequate handling of the economy by only concentrating on the debt issues, and actually expanding its bureaucratization that policies benefit only big businesses and big investors... Mr. Cameron standing supports Britsh interests in a short and even long terms if the EU policies are not improved... whereas the US, China and Japan use more aggressive and some time unorthodox approaches and the results for them are far better than the EU's..

  4. Commented

    Shane Beck

    The more interesting question is whether the EU should tolerate a United Kingdom that is half in and half out of the European Union. If the EU has the will and capacity to integrate more fully both politically and economically the answer is obvious- the EU must kick the UK out of the Union. To do otherwise would doom the whole project to sabotage and failure

Email this article

Your name is required.

Your email is required.


Your friend's name is required.

Your friend's email is required.


A message is required.