呂大明／月光組曲
圖／張韻明
／月神的故事／
颯颯秋風吹動珠簾，捲起珠簾，一輪明月映入室中，古代的淑女輕移娉婷蓮步，生得如玉簪花的臉兒，皺起兩道娥眉，對月思人……
元人白仁甫《梧桐雨》雜劇，唐明皇與楊貴妃在「碧天澄淨，銀河光瑩」的庭院中賞月，想的是「斗牛星畔客」，牛郎織女一年一度的相會。
想像希臘神話紡織女神阿西妮正在紡紗，這回她不用山頂的日光，夏天的雲彩，天空的碧藍，四野的墨綠，秋天樹林的絳紅色，她純粹以銀白月光的色澤來紡織，她紡得一塊純銀色的錦緞。
在月光下一切都是美的，希臘月神來到人間和少年牧人安迪彌昂（Endymion）相戀。濟慈（John Keats）以〈安迪彌昂〉寫成一首長詩，在這場愛情中，月神鍾情安迪彌昂，在夜間看守他的羊群，羊群數字增加了，安迪彌昂夜夜有佳人為伴，他依然感到只是一場夢境，白晝初現，月神就要回到天上。
濟慈寫這首長詩時只有二十三歲，讀〈安迪彌昂〉優美絕倫，覺得是少年詩人的化身，夢境的美，幻滅的悲哀，因為愛情只存在黑夜：A sleep full of sweet dreams.
「一段酣美的夢境」是濟慈的主題。
月神與拉德摩斯山（Latmos）少年牧人的愛情是世間最美的愛情之一。
聽！張君瑞高吟：「月色溶溶夜，花陰寂寂春，如何臨皓魄，不見月中人？」崔鶯鶯以「蘭閨久寂寞，無事度芳春，料得行吟者，應憐長歎人。」作答。
花箋錦字都寫在月下才子佳人的一唱一答中。
在英國牛津念書時，同學唱著歌兒沿著淇薇爾河畔散步，從此岸到彼岸景色都是迷人的，三月的落瓣飄在水面，五月的楊柳纏綿了漫長的晚春初夏，草原上野菊花綻放時，被同學認為才子的羅安採了一束野菊花送給他的戀人杜，羅安形容杜是一朵黃色的雛菊，因杜穿了一身黃色的洋裝。
我們陪杜與羅安在不同季節的淇薇爾河畔流連徘徊。
杜與羅安總是遠遠地落在大伙兒身後，我們每走一段路總得停下腳步，等待這對戀人。
杜與父母住在一幢鄉野的石屋，屋前爬滿了薔薇藤，屋頂石瓦冒出野花野草，沒有坡度的原野一望無際，像剛犁過的田野，呈現一片棕黃色……
是一個牛津的月夜，杜邀請我們晚餐，餐桌是擺在庭院中，振翅飛翔在月光下的鳥兒，牠們不在金河間飛翔，牠們來自天上，像濟慈筆下的月神……
那個晚餐，我隻字不提月神，我無意將淒涼的氣氛感染眼前歡樂的伴侶……回到牛津維多利亞古樓，面對窗前的月光，我悠長吟起〈安迪彌昂〉：Its loveliness increases; it will never／Pass into nothingness（它的美與日俱增／永遠不會幻滅）──譯自濟慈〈安迪彌昂〉
／君居淄右，妾家河陽／
在法國詩人拉佛格（Jules Laforgue）筆下的月亮是會失眠的，當蝙蝠展開灰撲撲的翅翼飛行，在老舊的牆垣間飛行，失眠的月光依然以皎白的光華照耀蝙蝠，於是牠們灰撲撲的翅翼也為月光漂染閃爍銀灰色。
在外省（province）鄉下婦人會在月光下搗衣，手中搗衣杵也染上銀光閃閃，一簍筐的舊衣也成了鍍銀的錦緞……
月光也許是場不真實的夢境，月光到處旅行，一經月光投射，就感染了月光哀涼的詩意……
正是情人分手的時候，吟起江淹的〈別賦〉：「造分手而銜涕，感寂寞而傷神。」
傷神是人間的別離。
若是君居淄右，妾家河陽，君住在山東西邊，妻住在黃河北岸，那是何等傷感的場面！
晨間妻子以玉佩裝飾，鏡中出現夫婦兩人的倩影，晚間點上香爐共薰夕香……故事中的女主角敘述昔日夫婦相聚的回憶，今日夫家帶上綬帶，千里遙遙出任官職……
今日妻子獨對瑤草（芳草）無情無緒，更不想在幽閨中彈起琴瑟，紡車上所織的黃色絲綢也失去了光采，春日面對屋前青苔的顏色，秋天紗帳籠罩明月的光華，夏天竹蓆清涼涼的，啊！白晝是多麼冗長，冬夜燈火昏暗，長夜漫漫……
雪萊描寫水輪的哀調，是為了一隻Widow Bird，那水磨轉動的聲音十分哀感動人，那隻失偶的鳥兒吟出水輪的悲調……
仰望青天，是否有一雙眼睛正逡巡宇宙眾生？孤棲的靈魂都擁有一位守護天使？那點燃生命火燭的，是否也會吹熄焰火，抹去墓邊的履痕？於是生命的印證抹滅了，還歸虛空？
燈影搖晃，聽到風鳴鳥唱，敘述是人間的淒涼意……
牆上掛鐘滴答滴答響起沒有變化的聲調，但到了一定的時辰，有隻畫眉會跳出歌唱報時……
天地是萬物的逆旅，光陰是百代的過客。
人一進入凋零的歲月，鏡中出現孤零零的影兒，君居淄右，妾家河陽，只有多情的月光，依然陪伴人生荒涼的歲月。
／夜宴圖／
時光如飄花流水，萬事萬物都隱含時間的玄機，秉燭夜遊也是為了彌補時間的傷痕。
開瓊筵以坐花，飛羽觴而醉月。
李白筆下的宴聚是坐花醉月的詩境，在繁花間擺了宴席，在月光下遞酒吟詩。
人間四季運轉，凋敗繁茂都是人生這個角色這齣戲必經之路。世界漸漸地沉睡了，生命短暫得像午後假寐片刻。
我的鄰居拉克里夫人在法國外省擁有一座宅邸，每逢夏日假期她會邀請幾位舊日知交去她鄉居度假，法國人喜歡將餐桌擱在花園裡……
人在逝水流年中穿巡，在日蝕月缺中穿巡，法國人極懂得掌握人生的歲月，是為了充盈人生這座精神的宮殿，如李白迷花醉月那麼富有文學味兒。
古代星象學家認為月球與星球運轉相遇會產生風雨，所以謝莊的〈月賦〉有「從星澤風」的說法。
在晴朗天外省的月亮特別迷人，月光穿越樹梢，映得滿園都是銀白的光芒，夜宴席上不需要燈火，參加盛宴的賓客衣冠楚楚，彩衣繽紛，但衣著都在月光下染色。
一隻鳥棲息樹端，拉克里夫人說牠不是夜鶯，牠的鳴唱荒腔走板，牠已多年棲息她園中老樹，她說是上主讓一隻鳥陪伴她孤單的歲月。但似乎家中有了客人，牠的歌聲也是鬧嚷嚷的，分享了眾賓客的歡樂氣氛。
夜已經十一點了，賓客似乎還沒有睡意，在座已沒人再飲茶與咖啡，擔心長夜失眠，拉克里夫人讓她管家遞上溫熱的牛奶，夜宴刻將落幕……
賓客逐漸離席，拉克里夫人面對月光有點傷感，我就想多陪伴這位老鄰居一段時辰……
想那月光也是來赴夜宴的賓客，她千里迢迢來赴盛會，我們古代有璇淵碧樹（玉池桂樹，有弋林釣渚之館（獵林和釣池）吳蔡齊秦的音樂，魚龍爵馬那些古代的雜技，如今都已煙消火滅了……
我是想對拉克里夫人說，人間的歡樂，憂愁，熱鬧，孤獨也不過像一場夢罷了，說著說著這位老鄰居臉上有了喜色，漸漸地有所「悟」，感懷傷逝的下一站就是悟，悟帶來「醒」，連那隻唱得荒腔走板的鳥也突然有節有拍了。
無盡的盛宴：飲宴人類學與考古學
作者: [英]奧康納(Kaori O'Connor)
出版社:廣西師大
出版時間:2023年05月
人民幣 ¥88
ISBN：9787559857323
內容簡介
宴會在整個人類歷史和世界各個地區都居於生活的核心。無數幽靈般的盛宴的遺骸充塞了世界各大博物館——曾經堆放豐盛肉食的盤子、傾倒佳釀的陶罐、用長長的金制或天青石吸管從中啜飲的啤酒罐、能夠製作上百人份食物的大鍋。
《無盡的盛宴》是一部開創性著作，利用人類學、考古學和歷史學方法來考察一些以壯麗宏大聞名的偉大古代社會中飲宴的動力。我們可以從中看到，宴會如何成為展示階級、地位和權力的競技場，貴族談判的舞臺，調動和分配資源的場合，取悅神明的手段，以及身份被創造、融合與毀滅的地方。
作者簡介
[英]香裡•奧康納（1945—2022），英國倫敦大學人類學系高級研究員。專注於通過結合考古手段與歷史學而研究物質文化、時尚和食物人類學。著有《英式早餐：國宴檔案與食譜》，2009年榮獲蘇菲•科爾飲食史獎。
目 錄
章 引言：盛宴之邀
文化/物質轉向 005
關於食物和宴請的早期人類學研究 007
食物和飲宴研究在歷史和考古學界的出現 014
消費與後來的食物、飲宴人類學 018
人類學：功能進路 020
人類學：文化進路 021
人類學：結構/符號進路 022
食物：儀式、神話、符號和神明 024
作為禮品和祭品的宴會 026
邁向綜合化 027
共赴盛宴 031
第二章 美索不達米亞：追求豐饒
前世今生：美索不達米亞往事 036
麵包和啤酒 038
“一抔塵土中的恐懼” 043
美索不達米亞眾神的工作 050
美索不達米亞的神廟和宮殿經濟 052
喂飽眾神 055
從神廟到宮殿—烏爾的盛宴 061
宮廷膳食 065
• 亞述人和阿契美尼德王朝的波斯人：
盛宴帝國
阿契美尼德王朝的波斯—饋贈帝國 082
波斯人、希臘人和“垂廢” 085
智慧之主的國度 088
豪摩 090
波斯波利斯的王權 092
阿契美尼德王朝的宮廷和國王的餐桌 097
阿契美尼德飲宴的回歸 110
第四章 希臘人：現在讓我們趕緊赴宴
邁錫尼序曲 114
“英雄時期”或“荷馬時期”的宴會 119
獻祭和烹調 123
幾何風格時期和古風時期的宴會 128
古風時期的會飲 135
古典時期的盛宴 142
第五章 歐亞大陸：蒙古—建立在酒飲上的帝國
蒙古人 162
第六章 中國：中式宴會的隱秘歷史
“中國”食物 191
周代的飲宴 200
龍骨 209
宴請祖先和造神活動 217
• 日本：設宴夢浮橋外
“日式”料理 232
武士之宴 235
跨越夢浮橋 246
平安時代的背景 247
看不見的食物和難以捉摸的筵席 254
• 尾聲：盛宴之後
參考文獻
譯後記
線上試讀
“在國王面前進食”和“在國王面前豪飲”這樣的短語反復出現在《波斯波利斯要塞文獻》及其他與大量食物和供給品相關的文獻中，如前述石柱上的清單，這並不一定指在國王面前吃吃喝喝，而“國王的餐桌”這個短語也不一定真的指國王用餐的那件傢俱。所有這些都是對支撐著社會各階層的制度化再分配或配給制度的隱喻。這是中央王庭之內的情況，各總督轄區廷則要負責向偉大的國王送上貢品和當地好的特產，同時在當地重新分配剩餘產品和其他供給品。由行政長官以國王的名義發放的配給或明或暗地代表著統治者的饋贈。“國王的巨大筵席桌既是一種重新分配的手段，也是王室慷慨的展現，同時也是整個帝國的縮影”（Lincoln 2007: 14）。至少希臘作家庫邁的赫拉克利德斯（Heracleides of Cumae），理解了該制度的一些原理：
……國王的晚宴，一如其名，對於只聞其名的人來說，似乎是揮霍奢靡，但仔細審視它，便會發現它只是不落後於經濟狀況，甚至有點吝嗇，其他波斯要人的晚宴也是如此。因為每天要為國王宰殺1000只動物……並且其中只有少量分給國王的賓客，他們每一位都可以將這頓飯中沒有動過的食物帶回家。但大部分肉食和其他食物被送到庭院中，分給了國王供養的侍衛和輕騎兵，他們在院中將所有吃了一半的剩肉和麵包平分了。就像希臘的雇傭兵以金錢作為薪酬一樣，這些人從國王那裡收到食物作為服務的報償。與此類似，在其他波斯要人之中……當他們的賓客吃完飯後，桌上剩下的一切，主要是肉和麵包，會由負責餐桌的官員分給每一個奴隸，他們以此來獲取日常給養。
（Athenaeus IV: 145-6）
到赫拉克利德斯寫作時的西元前4世紀，國王晚宴或稱“國王的餐桌”制度從居魯士時代開始就發生了相當大的變化，並反映出阿契美尼德王朝社會組織的變化。阿契美尼德人原本是一個由六大部族組成的部落聯盟，在居魯士之前的數個世代中，帕薩爾加德（Pasargadae）一直是其中的佼佼者，其後裔居魯士成為聯邦領袖，開始了建立帝國的豐功偉業。在這個尚武的社會中，居魯士是同儕之首（primus inter pares），通過供養他人而使自己的地位合法化，並因慷慨大度而獲得了眾人的支持。在他征戰的早期，“在他能夠以財富施惠”之前，就像色諾芬寫的那樣（VIII.2），居魯士習慣與許多賓客共進晚餐，分享相同的食物：
……在與賓客一起享用晚餐之後，他會將食物送給缺席的朋友們，以示情誼和紀念。他會將那些因守衛工作或殷勤服侍或其他任何服務贏得他認可的人包括在內，讓他們知道他不會錯過任何取悅他們的意願。他會對任何他想稱讚的僕人表現出同樣的尊敬；他將為他們準備的所有食物置於他自己的案台之上，相信這會贏得他們的忠心，就像贏得一條狗的忠心一樣。或者，如果他希望某位朋友受到人民的敬重，他會讓其獨自享受這樣的饋贈。甚至時至今日，世人仍會追逐那些得到來自偉大國王的餐桌上的佳餚的人，認為他們必然在宮中大受推崇，並且能為他人辦事。但收到如此恩惠無疑還有另一個樂趣，那就是王室的肉食可口。
在這個階段，居魯士通過較為簡單的共餐方式，即面對面或較為間接地將他人包括在內，創造和鞏固了社會凝聚力，但隨著帝國逐漸露出雛形，新的社會差異出現了，而與國王共餐也變得更複雜。色諾芬是偏向功能主義的希臘作家之一，總是能看到藏在天鵝絨手套裡的鐵腕。他對飲食的微妙細節漠不關心，將米堤亞國王阿斯特亞戈斯（Astyages）的王室晚宴概括為“講究的配菜和各種調味汁以及肉類”的集合—他的重點反倒在於帝國早期阿契美尼德人飲宴的社會動力和座次的意義：
居魯士為他的勝利獻出祭品，並舉辦盛大的慶典，同時召喚他喜愛和願意歌功頌德的朋友們赴宴……加達塔斯（Gadatas）是執杖者的首領，整個王宮的佈置都按照他的建議來安排。當有賓客出席晚宴時，加達塔斯不會落座，而是照管一切……客人進來時，加達塔斯會為每個人指明座位，而位置都經過精心選擇：居魯士為尊敬的友人被安排在他的左手
邊（因為這是容易遭到襲擊的位置），排名第二者在他的右邊，第三名緊挨著國王左手邊的賓客，而第四名緊挨著國王右邊的賓客，以此類推，無論賓客人數是多少。居魯士認為每個人都應當知道自己受尊敬的程度，因為他覺得當世人認為功績不再能贏得花冠也不再被頌揚時，競爭精神便會消亡，但如果所有人都看到秀者贏得多，便會積極競爭。於是，居魯士用主座和順序標識出他寵信的人。他並不是總將榮耀的位置安排給某一個朋友，他的準則是，一個人的座次可以因好的行為而提升，也會因消極怠惰而降低。並且，如果大家不知道餐桌旁受尊敬的賓客得到了多恩惠，他會感到愧疚。我們可以作證，這些在居魯士統治時期出現的習慣一直延續到我們的時代。
居魯士並非這些做法的發明者，它們普遍通行且不受時間影響，但當波斯軍事精英從部族文化中湧現時，他將這些做法作為優勢加以利用。確實，居魯士宴會方式的變化反映並構成了社會政治的變遷，這讓人想起很久以前烏爾的模式（參見第二章）。波斯帝國和飲宴發展的下一個階段採用了配給制度，出現了崇高的阿契美尼德王權，並且形成了王室宮廷，宮廷中精英廷臣階層取代世襲軍事精英，平衡了國王自己的龐大家族與部族之間的權力。在居魯士大力打造的王權新魅力中，距離是其基本組成部分。居魯士不再是同儕之首，而是所有人的君王，他從日常公共事務中抽身，創建了由其近親組成的內廷，以及由國王的龐大家族、總督或省長、“老衛隊”（old guard）成員或從其原部落抽調來的世襲波斯貴族分等排序所組成的外廷。對於國王來說，宮廷的職能是“充當通過浮華盛況和宮廷慶典來突出他獨一無二地位的權力劇場”（Brosius 2007: 59）。越來越多平民出身的精英加入宮廷，通過有利於或取悅國王的行為贏得了自己的地位（Brosius 2007）。新來者之間也有等級之分，那些被統治者賜予“國王之友”（King’s Friend）正式稱號的人地位。色諾芬在《居魯士傳》中這樣描寫道：“世界上確實沒有誰的朋友像波斯君主的朋友一樣富有；沒人能像他那樣把追隨者裝扮得如此華麗，也沒有饋贈能像他的恩典一般享有盛名，如手鏈、項鍊以及配有金色韁繩的戰馬。因為在那個國家，除非國王賜予，無人能擁有如此財富。”朝中的職位—即使是國王的親戚—也並非固定，而是取決於國王的持續認可，而這必定常常變化更新，從而創造出一種高度競爭的社會環境，身處其中的人們普遍擔心自己失去地位。
中國債務與GDP之比不斷上升 2019達頂峰283％--標普：令評級受壓； 學者：中國政府須減少對國...
Beijing’s sale of weapons abroad are concentrated ...
司馬觀點：美國大選、美國式賽馬（江春男）
Life, Death and Graft in Southeast Asia
嶺南大學學生會：校董會恬不知恥 立即兌現圍堵承諾
A ‘Rebel’ Without a Ph.D
王盈勛：大學整併只是一場無謂的假戲； 馮建三：大學合併 真病大
張丹紅：華德福的神話
衛武營....
Mecanoo Designs New Engineering Campus for University of Manchester
在2月(2013)底東海大學的羅時瑋 院長通知我們：
"傍晚Mecanoo Architecten主持人Prof. Francine Houben要來東海走走,也會到系館來! http://www.mecanoo.nl/"
Mecanoo Architecten 是一家一流設計單位。 它的網站，可以作為我們今天討論的起點.
也許參訪這一網站，可以從其自己拍攝的約7分鐘的簡介開始，然後我們看它的：
ArchDaily
18 小時前 ·
Mecanoo and MAYU 建築師事務所 have won a competition to design the new Tainan Public Library in Taiwan. Learn more about their winning design, which features an inverted stepped façade, here:http://bit.ly/24mpEQE
Mecanoo Wins Competition to Design Tainan Public Library
ARCHDAILY.COM
胡適日記：1948.8.10
郭嵩焘作胡文忠公 (林翼) 行狀，記胡公"嘗言國之需才，猶魚之需水，鳥之需林，人之需氣，草木之需土，得之則生，不得則死。才者無求於天下，天下當自求之。
({養知書屋文集}十七，49。)
金山、漢清：平安！
東海已經進入新階段，無須也不應由過往的人物繼續影響新人新政。是非功過自在人心，但求問心無愧才是！
至於江、蕭對於湯的訴訟屬於私人恩怨，不應動用東海資源。個人認為應該忘記背後，努力面前的，無須被過去綑綁，但若當事人要繼續纏鬥，應該是個人行為，若因此影響東海運作，本人豈會輕易放過???
蘋論：擺脫扁馬用人盲點
2016年02月23日
居魯士的教育（ Cyropaedi）；遠征記（ Anabasis ）
Italo Calvino, Hermit in Paris: Autobiographical W...
Umberto Eco in 9 Quotes: Remembering His Greater T...
余英時《漢代貿易與擴張──漢胡經濟關係的研究》(1967/2008)
Burmese Days, by George Orwell
陳子善 《鉤沉新月--發現梁實秋及其他》《沉醉春風--追尋郁達夫及其他》
社會的劇變 ‧從工業社會邁向後工業社會 Prophecy and progress: the soc...
Umberto Eco, medievalist and novelist,《倒退的年代：跟著大師艾...
創作與回憶: 周策縱敎授七十五夀慶集； {詩歌*黨爭與歌妓：周邦彥{蘭陵王}詞考釋}
北島的詩集《守夜》，鍾芳玲《四季訪書》
沉思錄 (Marcus Aurelius) 梁實秋等人譯
來自深淵的吶喊 DE PROFUNDIS：王爾德獄中書 /自深深處
Women to get £3,000 'birth budgets' in England
Boris Johnson exclusive: There is only one way to ...
EU referendum date set for 23 June after David Cam...
【世界台】英國禁止公部門抵制以色列
2016/02/22
文 / 周盈成
以下這篇短文，是用教育部公布的台語標準用字寫成。一點都不難，認得中文、略通台語， 就懂八九成了。還有聲音檔唸給你聽，許多字詞也超連結到教育部《臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典》。看世界新聞，兼學台語文，就是【世界台 ~ Sè-kài Tâi】啦
為著抗議以色列對巴勒斯坦人的壓迫，國際上有抵制以色列商品的運動。英國政府最近規定，公部門的機關團體，不准閣參與抵制。這引起袂少爭論，批評者講，這是侵害在地民主。
2005年，巴勒斯坦的團體發起訴求抵制、撤資、制裁的BDS運動，對以色列施壓，佇世界得著濟濟支持。英國嘛有一寡地方政府加入，拒買以色列的產品，尤其是佔領區約旦河西岸生產的。In認為這是一種道德責任。
頂禮拜三，英國的內閣辦公室大臣Matthew Hancock訪問以色列，仝時陣公佈新的規定，講根據世界貿易組織（WTO）的政府採購協定，身為簽署國的英國著平等對待其他的簽署國，任何的政府採購，若是歧視以色列的供應商，就是違反協定。
政府的聲明講，公部門對以色列商品的抵制「無適當」，超出政府對外的正式佮合法制裁，而且會激化反猶主義。今後違反新規定的機關團體會受著重罰。
以色列對英國的新規定表示歡迎。另外一方面，BDS運動堅持抵制行動合法。
BDS運動佇聲明內底講，英國現行的公共合約法是根據歐盟法律，允准排除有犯「 重大不正行為」的公司參與投標。所以BDS建議支持者，抵制有牽涉著以色列違反人權行為的公司，毋是因為遮的公司設佇以色列才共抵制。
BDS運動批評英國政府是咧威脅公部門單位，講「這个政府是一个世代以來上蓋親以色列的，比（前首相）Margaret Thatcher當初替種族隔離的南非辯護閣較超過」。
其實抵制分真濟層次，意見毋是簡單的贊成佮反對爾爾。英國《獨立報》的社論指出，反猶主義佇英國升高，確實予人煩惱，毋過政府袂當共所有對以色列的抗議攏看做過激行動。
這篇社論講，抵制無應該像BDS運動組織主張的，針對規个以色列；應該愛針對非法的佔領區，英國幾若个地方政府就是按呢做，這嘛符合歐盟的立場。
文章講，英國政府的這步，無定是受著美國的壓力，這是反背巴勒斯坦人民。共針對非法政府行動的合法抗議消音，是失德的外交政策。
2005年，巴勒斯坦的團體發起訴求抵制、撤資、制裁的BDS運動，對以色列施壓，佇世界得著濟濟支持。英國嘛有一寡地方政府加入，拒買以色列的產品，尤其是佔領區約旦河西岸生產的。In認為這是一種道德責任。圖片取自：Takver – Israel – Boycott, divest, sanction，創用cc授權
Johnson 市長
I am a European. I lived many years in Brussels. I rather love the old place. And so I resent the way we continually confuse Europe – the home of the greatest and richest culture in the world, to which Britain is and will be an eternal contributor – with the political project of the European Union. It is, therefore, vital to stress that there is nothing necessarily anti-European or xenophobic in wanting to vote Leave on June 23.
"We are seeing a slow and invisible process of legal colonisation, as the EU infiltrates just about every area of public policy"
Boris Johnson
And it is important to remember: it isn’t we in this country who have changed. It is the European Union. In the 28 years since I first started writing for this paper about the Common Market – as it was then still known – the project has morphed and grown in such a way as to be unrecognisable, rather as the vast new Euro palaces of glass and steel now lour over the little cobbled streets in the heart of the Belgian capital.
When I went to Brussels in 1989, I found well-meaning officials (many of them British) trying to break down barriers to trade with a new procedure – agreed by Margaret Thatcher – called Qualified Majority Voting. The efforts at harmonisation were occasionally comical, and I informed readers about euro-condoms and the great war against the British prawn cocktail flavour crisp. And then came German reunification, and the panicked efforts of Delors, Kohl and Mitterrand to “lock” Germany into Europe with the euro; and since then the pace of integration has never really slackened.
As new countries have joined, we have seen a hurried expansion in the areas for Qualified Majority Voting, so that Britain can be overruled more and more often (as has happened in the past five years). We have had not just the Maastricht Treaty, but Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon, every one of them representing an extension of EU authority and a centralisation in Brussels. According to the House of Commons library, anything between 15 and 50 per cent of UK legislation now comes from the EU; and remember that this type of legislation is very special.
It is unstoppable, and it is irreversible – since it can only be repealed by the EU itself. Ask how much EU legislation the Commission has actually taken back under its various programmes for streamlining bureaucracy. The answer is none. That is why EU law is likened to a ratchet, clicking only forwards. We are seeing a slow and invisible process of legal colonisation, as the EU infiltrates just about every area of public policy. Then – and this is the key point – the EU acquires supremacy in any field that it touches; because it is one of the planks of Britain’s membership, agreed in 1972, that any question involving the EU must go to Luxembourg, to be adjudicated by the European Court of Justice.
"At a time when Brussels should be devolving power, it is hauling more and more towards the centre, and there is no way that Britain can be unaffected"
Boris Johnson
It was one thing when that court contented itself with the single market, and ensuring that there was free and fair trade across the EU. We are now way beyond that stage. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the court has taken on the ability to vindicate people’s rights under the 55-clause “Charter of Fundamental Human Rights”, including such peculiar entitlements as the right to found a school, or the right to “pursue a freely chosen occupation” anywhere in the EU, or the right to start a business.
These are not fundamental rights as we normally understand them, and the mind boggles as to how they will be enforced. Tony Blair told us he had an opt-out from this charter.
Alas, that opt-out has not proved legally durable, and there are real fears among British jurists about the activism of the court. The more the EU does, the less room there is for national decision-making. Sometimes these EU rules sound simply ludicrous, like the rule that you can’t recycle a teabag, or that children under eight cannot blow up balloons, or the limits on the power of vacuum cleaners. Sometimes they can be truly infuriating – like the time I discovered, in 2013, that there was nothing we could do to bring in better-designed cab windows for trucks, to stop cyclists being crushed. It had to be done at a European level, and the French were opposed.
Sometimes the public can see all too plainly the impotence of their own elected politicians – as with immigration. That enrages them; not so much the numbers as the lack of control. That is what we mean by loss of sovereignty – the inability of people to kick out, at elections, the men and women who control their lives. We are seeing an alienation of the people from the power they should hold, and I am sure this is contributing to the sense of disengagement, the apathy, the view that politicians are “all the same” and can change nothing, and to the rise of extremist parties.
Democracy matters; and I find it deeply worrying that the Greeks are effectively being told what to do with their budgets and public spending, in spite of huge suffering among the population. And now the EU wants to go further. There is a document floating around Brussels called “The Five Presidents Report”, in which the leaders of the various EU institutions map out ways to save the euro. It all involves more integration: a social union, a political union, a budgetary union. At a time when Brussels should be devolving power, it is hauling more and more towards the centre, and there is no way that Britain can be unaffected.
David Cameron has done his very best, and he has achieved more than many expected. There is some useful language about stopping “ever-closer union” from applying to the UK, about protecting the euro outs from the euro ins, and about competition and deregulation.
David Cameron, Donald Tusk, and Alexis Tsipras at the first day of the EU summit Photo: Caters
There is an excellent forthcoming Bill that will assert the sovereignty of Parliament, the fruit of heroic intellectual labour by Oliver Letwin, which may well exercise a chilling effect on some of the more federalist flights of fancy of the court and the Commission. It is good, and right, but it cannot stop the machine; at best it can put a temporary and occasional spoke in the ratchet.
There is only one way to get the change we need, and that is to vote to go, because all EU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No. The fundamental problem remains: that they have an ideal that we do not share. They want to create a truly federal union, e pluribus unum, when most British people do not.
It is time to seek a new relationship, in which we manage to extricate ourselves from most of the supranational elements. We will hear a lot in the coming weeks about the risks of this option; the risk to the economy, the risk to the City of London, and so on; and though those risks cannot be entirely dismissed, I think they are likely to be exaggerated. We have heard this kind of thing before, about the decision to opt out of the euro, and the very opposite turned out to be the case.
I also accept there is a risk that a vote to Leave the EU, as it currently stands, will cause fresh tensions in the union between England and Scotland. On the other hand, most of the evidence I have seen suggests that the Scots will vote on roughly the same lines as the English.
Mayor of London Boris Johnson Photo: GETTY IMAGES
We will be told that a Brexit would embolden Putin, though it seems to me he is more likely to be emboldened, for instance, by the West’s relative passivity in Syria.
Above all, we will be told that whatever the democratic deficiencies, we would be better off remaining in because of the “influence” we have. This is less and less persuasive to me. Only 4 per cent of people running the Commission are UK nationals, when Britain contains 12 per cent of the EU population. It is not clear why the Commission should be best placed to know the needs of UK business and industry, rather than the myriad officials at UK Trade & Investment or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
If the “Leave” side wins, it will indeed be necessary to negotiate a large number of trade deals at great speed. But why should that be impossible? We have become so used to Nanny in Brussels that we have become infantilised, incapable of imagining an independent future. We used to run the biggest empire the world has ever seen, and with a much smaller domestic population and a relatively tiny Civil Service. Are we really unable to do trade deals? We will have at least two years in which the existing treaties will be in force.
"This is a moment for Britain to be brave, to reach out – not to hug the skirts of Nurse in Brussels, and refer all decisions to someone else"
Boris Johnson
The real risk is to the general morale of Europe, and to the prestige of the EU project. We should take that seriously.
We should remember that this federalist vision is not an ignoble idea. It was born of the highest motives – to keep the peace in Europe. The people who run the various EU institutions – whom we like to ply with crass abuse – are, in my experience, principled and thoughtful officials. They have done some very good things: I think of the work of Sir Leon Brittan, for instance, as Competition Commissioner, and his fight against state aid.
They just have a different view of the way Europe should be constructed. I would hope they would see a vote to leave as a challenge, not just to strike a new and harmonious relationship with Britain (in which those benefits could be retained) but to recover some of the competitiveness that the continent has lost in the last decades.
Whatever happens, Britain needs to be supportive of its friends and allies – but on the lines originally proposed by Winston Churchill: interested, associated, but not absorbed; with Europe – but not comprised. We have spent 500 years trying to stop continental European powers uniting against us. There is no reason (if everyone is sensible) why that should happen now, and every reason for friendliness.
For many Conservatives, this has already been a pretty agonising business. Many of us are deeply internally divided, and we are divided between us. We know that we do not agree on the substance, but I hope we can all agree to concentrate on the arguments; to play the ball and not the man.
At the end of it all, we want to get a result, and then get on and unite around David Cameron – continuing to deliver better jobs, better housing, better health, education and a better quality of life for our constituents for whom (let’s be frank) the EU is not always the number one issue.
It is entirely thanks to the Prime Minister, his bravery and energy, and the fact that he won a majority Conservative government, that we are having a referendum at all. Never forget that if it were down to Jeremy Corbyn and the so-called People’s Party, the people would be completely frozen out.
This is the right moment to have a referendum, because as Europe changes, Britain is changing too. This is a truly great country that is now going places at extraordinary speed. We are the European, if not the world, leaders in so many sectors of the 21st-century economy; not just financial services, but business services, the media, biosciences, universities, the arts, technology of all kinds (of the 40 EU technology companies worth more than $1 billion, 17 are British); and we still have a dizzyingly fertile manufacturing sector.
Now is the time to spearhead the success of those products and services not just in Europe, but in growth markets beyond. This is a moment to be brave, to reach out – not to hug the skirts of Nurse in Brussels, and refer all decisions to someone else.
沒有留言:
張貼留言